Emma - Articles/Press - Valerie Hudson 2020
Valerie Hudson on Sex and World Peace 2020
Photoshoot Here.
Valerie Hudson on Sex and World Peace (2020)It probably takes a lot for Emma Watson to be starstruck, but that’s how the iconic Little Women and Harry Potter actor says she felt when she spoke to Texas A&M professor and author Valerie Hudson.
The two recently hopped on a call to discuss Hudson’s book, Sex and World Peace, which Watson received a copy of from Gloria Steinem and which she highlighted on her Instagram for International Women’s Day. They ended up having a sprawling conversation on everything from the power of being happily single to Watson’s work with the United Nations Women HeForShe campaign to why men just don’t listen to women enough.
Teen Vogue published their conversation, below.
Emma Watson: This is so cool. I’m starstruck!
Valerie Hudson: I sort of feel the same way. One of my daughters is currently reading the Harry Potter series, so every time she finishes a book, we get to see the movie, and of course, you know, you are their heroine.
EW: Ah, I love that. You are such a badass. Your book, it exploded my brain — I think that’s the most accurate way that I can put it! What prompted you to write it?
VH: When I went to graduate school in international affairs, you could have taken my entire coursework and never known there were women on Earth. It was that woman-less.… The idea that national security could have something to do with women would have seemed ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. And I was a product of that. And it really wasn’t until my eyes began to open, I began to ask questions. I began to read things that had hints.
One of the things you discover very quickly is that if you say, ‘I think national security has something to do with women’, people say, ‘Oh, you know, come back when you’ve got some data; don’t tell us these stories.’ It’s too dismissible without data. That’s why we took the data route.
EW: Well, the data you collected is heart-stopping. Like the fact that ‘the largest risk for poverty in old age is determined by whether or not one has ever given birth to a child.’ When you hear that if women’s caring labor were valued even at minimum wage, it would account for 40% of world production, it’s hard to hear that and remain unmoved. How far do you think we are from achieving a minimum wage or social security benefits for what is now free caring labor?
VH: That’s a brilliant question, and one of the things that I’ve begun to think lately is: Is capitalism itself predicated on all of the life-giving/caregiving work being completely unpaid, being on the backs of women? And if it is, what does that say about the sustainability of capitalism? Those who actually keep everybody alive, give you new generations, take care of the elderly and the sick, get no credit for this.
EW: You write about the Goldberg paradigm, and how in evaluating speech the same words are rated higher coming from men. It’s likely why Harry Potter is not known to be written by Joanne Rowling. If promoting their own success is a helpful strategy for men, but women highlighting their accomplishments is a turn off, how do we get to a more level playing field?
VH: I think one of the things that really caused me to sit up straight and pay attention is when I was hearing results from neuroscience that suggested that women’s voices may be processed by men in the same area of the brain that processes background music and noise…. And I thought to myself, Well, that explains about every departmental faculty meeting I’ve ever been in. [laughs]
We have difficulty even accepting women’s expertise and authority. Studies have shown that when a woman joins a largely male body or committee or whatever, that her expertise is discounted by fully 50%. So she may be actually the one with the most expertise in the room, but she’ll be processed by those around her, including women, as having half that.
EW: Is there anything in your research that has come up that you think might help?
VH: I challenge my students. I say, ‘You may not be the president of the United States at the moment, but you are interacting with members of the other sex. How are you treating them? Are you listening to them?’ I challenge my male students. I say, ‘When a woman is speaking at a table where you’re at and people are ignoring her, there are things that you can do to bring attention to what she’s saying, and retrain our brains to listen to women.’
I think that’s one of the reasons why the #MeToo movement has given me such hope…. Women were not heard when they said these things before, and now there’s a decent chance they will be.
EW: It’s true, I mean, gosh, it’s so heartening. There’s been a lot of hits recently and it feels good to be moving in the right direction.
VH: Well, you know, men don’t pay attention until the big guys are taken down, and some very big guys have been taken down. I think there’s a reassessment going on.
EW: I agree. One thing I’ve been hearing a lot that I’m curious for your opinion on is that, since #MeToo, a lot of men are telling me that they won’t even take meetings with women on their own, that they have to have somebody else in the room, or that this is going to hurt the women’s movement because men will just be so much less likely to want to work with them.
[both laugh]VH: I think you’re onto the fact that this is a complete rationalization. What it basically boils down to is saying, unless women are content to live by male rules, we won’t treat them like human beings. I mean, isn’t that the translation of what these people are telling you? I think that’s outrageous.
EW: They say it to me in a way that’s like, ‘Look, I’m just being the realist, I’m just being realistic here.’ And I reply, ‘I don’t think you are and it’s not really good enough! We can do better than that!’
So, I love that you say, ‘Silence is the sturdy ally of gendered microaggression.’ In a climate where some are dismissing microaggressions, tell us why this type of aggression is important to pay attention to.
VH: The reason that the #MeToo movement exploded on the world stage was that you had millions of women, tens of millions of women, who had experienced a reality that they literally could not speak about. They couldn’t speak about what they had experienced. And so, I think that silence is exactly the carpet under which we shove all of these nasty little things, and there can’t be any change when that happens. It’s when you pull back the carpet and you see the cockroaches that you’re like, ‘Oh, time for an exterminator!’
EW: One-hundred percent. I love the word ‘microaggression.’ I’ve been doing therapy for years and think it’s the best thing ever, and we talk about ‘telling the microscopic truth.’
VH: It’s those tiny little moments that each woman knows about and yet there’s no words for these things, or at least there hasn’t been any words before.
EW: There’s so little vocabulary. In Thomas Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd, Bathsheba says: ‘It is difficult for a woman to define her feelings in language that is made by men to express theirs’. You know, I’m trying to express myself in a language that just doesn’t have vocabulary for me.
VH: I often think that one of the most revolutionary things that women could do is to begin to develop words for these feelings that they’ve always had.
EW: I did an interview with Vogue magazine a couple of months ago, and I talked about how, in the run up to my 30s, [I felt] this incredible, sudden anxiety and pressure that I had to be married or have a baby or moving into a house, and there was no word for this kind of subliminal messaging and anxiety and pressure that I felt building up, but I couldn’t really name, and so I used the word ‘self-partnered.’ For me it wasn’t so much about coining a word; it was more that I needed to create a definition for something that I didn’t feel there was language for. And it was really interesting because it really riled some people up! It was less for me about the word but more about what it meant — just this idea that we need to reclaim language and space in order to express ourselves because sometimes it’s really not there.
It’s fascinating to me that the origin story of marriage centers around ownership and power — safeguarding bloodlines, establishing property and land rights, creating tactical alliances to increase circles of influence and establish new trading links, et cetera.
VH: In a weird way, marriage was born out of slavery. The idea that you needed to control the reproductive capabilities of these women, just as you would control cattle and you would control land, and you would keep those things in your male-bonded kin group. We still have laws in most countries, many countries, that say upon divorce the children go with the husband’s family. …And I think one of the actual really important things that modernity did was to suggest that this contractual nature of marriage was not the only kind of marriage to have, and that there was in fact a different template based on equal partnership, equal respect, equal consideration that could be a far more healthy, prosperous, and happy type of relationship than you’ve seen previously.
EW: I feel that relationships that don’t necessarily follow traditional models do require more communication and consent. It requires an actual conversation and agreement about the delegation of tasks and labor and responsibilities that maybe you don’t feel that you need to have or should have if you follow those traditional stereotypes.… The idea that relationships are supposed to be easy and it’s all supposed to be implicitly understood, and you’re just meant to get each other, it’s bullsh*t! It’s impossible!
A lot of the healthiest relationships I’ve seen have been between same-sex couples because, I think, they have to sit down and agree [on] things. They agree [on] things between them as opposed to [accepting] certain sets of assumptions and expectations that are made. I’ve also kind of become slightly fascinated by kink culture because they are the best communicators ever. They know all about consent. They [understand] that stuff because they really have to get it — but we could all use those models; they’re actually really helpful models.
Anyway, I truly am geeking out. I’m so happy I got to meet you. Your book was one of those books that made me go, ‘Holy sh*t!’ So, thank you for writing it and for all of your research and hard work.
VH: Thank you for being an ambassador that publicizes this message, because this is, I think, the critical message of our time. We have got to get it together. Men and women have got to make peace between each other so that our world has a future.
The two recently hopped on a call to discuss Hudson’s book, Sex and World Peace, which Watson received a copy of from Gloria Steinem and which she highlighted on her Instagram for International Women’s Day. They ended up having a sprawling conversation on everything from the power of being happily single to Watson’s work with the United Nations Women HeForShe campaign to why men just don’t listen to women enough.
Teen Vogue published their conversation, below.
Emma Watson: This is so cool. I’m starstruck!
Valerie Hudson: I sort of feel the same way. One of my daughters is currently reading the Harry Potter series, so every time she finishes a book, we get to see the movie, and of course, you know, you are their heroine.
EW: Ah, I love that. You are such a badass. Your book, it exploded my brain — I think that’s the most accurate way that I can put it! What prompted you to write it?
VH: When I went to graduate school in international affairs, you could have taken my entire coursework and never known there were women on Earth. It was that woman-less.… The idea that national security could have something to do with women would have seemed ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous. And I was a product of that. And it really wasn’t until my eyes began to open, I began to ask questions. I began to read things that had hints.
One of the things you discover very quickly is that if you say, ‘I think national security has something to do with women’, people say, ‘Oh, you know, come back when you’ve got some data; don’t tell us these stories.’ It’s too dismissible without data. That’s why we took the data route.
EW: Well, the data you collected is heart-stopping. Like the fact that ‘the largest risk for poverty in old age is determined by whether or not one has ever given birth to a child.’ When you hear that if women’s caring labor were valued even at minimum wage, it would account for 40% of world production, it’s hard to hear that and remain unmoved. How far do you think we are from achieving a minimum wage or social security benefits for what is now free caring labor?
VH: That’s a brilliant question, and one of the things that I’ve begun to think lately is: Is capitalism itself predicated on all of the life-giving/caregiving work being completely unpaid, being on the backs of women? And if it is, what does that say about the sustainability of capitalism? Those who actually keep everybody alive, give you new generations, take care of the elderly and the sick, get no credit for this.
EW: You write about the Goldberg paradigm, and how in evaluating speech the same words are rated higher coming from men. It’s likely why Harry Potter is not known to be written by Joanne Rowling. If promoting their own success is a helpful strategy for men, but women highlighting their accomplishments is a turn off, how do we get to a more level playing field?
VH: I think one of the things that really caused me to sit up straight and pay attention is when I was hearing results from neuroscience that suggested that women’s voices may be processed by men in the same area of the brain that processes background music and noise…. And I thought to myself, Well, that explains about every departmental faculty meeting I’ve ever been in. [laughs]
We have difficulty even accepting women’s expertise and authority. Studies have shown that when a woman joins a largely male body or committee or whatever, that her expertise is discounted by fully 50%. So she may be actually the one with the most expertise in the room, but she’ll be processed by those around her, including women, as having half that.
EW: Is there anything in your research that has come up that you think might help?
VH: I challenge my students. I say, ‘You may not be the president of the United States at the moment, but you are interacting with members of the other sex. How are you treating them? Are you listening to them?’ I challenge my male students. I say, ‘When a woman is speaking at a table where you’re at and people are ignoring her, there are things that you can do to bring attention to what she’s saying, and retrain our brains to listen to women.’
I think that’s one of the reasons why the #MeToo movement has given me such hope…. Women were not heard when they said these things before, and now there’s a decent chance they will be.
EW: It’s true, I mean, gosh, it’s so heartening. There’s been a lot of hits recently and it feels good to be moving in the right direction.
VH: Well, you know, men don’t pay attention until the big guys are taken down, and some very big guys have been taken down. I think there’s a reassessment going on.
EW: I agree. One thing I’ve been hearing a lot that I’m curious for your opinion on is that, since #MeToo, a lot of men are telling me that they won’t even take meetings with women on their own, that they have to have somebody else in the room, or that this is going to hurt the women’s movement because men will just be so much less likely to want to work with them.
[both laugh]VH: I think you’re onto the fact that this is a complete rationalization. What it basically boils down to is saying, unless women are content to live by male rules, we won’t treat them like human beings. I mean, isn’t that the translation of what these people are telling you? I think that’s outrageous.
EW: They say it to me in a way that’s like, ‘Look, I’m just being the realist, I’m just being realistic here.’ And I reply, ‘I don’t think you are and it’s not really good enough! We can do better than that!’
So, I love that you say, ‘Silence is the sturdy ally of gendered microaggression.’ In a climate where some are dismissing microaggressions, tell us why this type of aggression is important to pay attention to.
VH: The reason that the #MeToo movement exploded on the world stage was that you had millions of women, tens of millions of women, who had experienced a reality that they literally could not speak about. They couldn’t speak about what they had experienced. And so, I think that silence is exactly the carpet under which we shove all of these nasty little things, and there can’t be any change when that happens. It’s when you pull back the carpet and you see the cockroaches that you’re like, ‘Oh, time for an exterminator!’
EW: One-hundred percent. I love the word ‘microaggression.’ I’ve been doing therapy for years and think it’s the best thing ever, and we talk about ‘telling the microscopic truth.’
VH: It’s those tiny little moments that each woman knows about and yet there’s no words for these things, or at least there hasn’t been any words before.
EW: There’s so little vocabulary. In Thomas Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd, Bathsheba says: ‘It is difficult for a woman to define her feelings in language that is made by men to express theirs’. You know, I’m trying to express myself in a language that just doesn’t have vocabulary for me.
VH: I often think that one of the most revolutionary things that women could do is to begin to develop words for these feelings that they’ve always had.
EW: I did an interview with Vogue magazine a couple of months ago, and I talked about how, in the run up to my 30s, [I felt] this incredible, sudden anxiety and pressure that I had to be married or have a baby or moving into a house, and there was no word for this kind of subliminal messaging and anxiety and pressure that I felt building up, but I couldn’t really name, and so I used the word ‘self-partnered.’ For me it wasn’t so much about coining a word; it was more that I needed to create a definition for something that I didn’t feel there was language for. And it was really interesting because it really riled some people up! It was less for me about the word but more about what it meant — just this idea that we need to reclaim language and space in order to express ourselves because sometimes it’s really not there.
It’s fascinating to me that the origin story of marriage centers around ownership and power — safeguarding bloodlines, establishing property and land rights, creating tactical alliances to increase circles of influence and establish new trading links, et cetera.
VH: In a weird way, marriage was born out of slavery. The idea that you needed to control the reproductive capabilities of these women, just as you would control cattle and you would control land, and you would keep those things in your male-bonded kin group. We still have laws in most countries, many countries, that say upon divorce the children go with the husband’s family. …And I think one of the actual really important things that modernity did was to suggest that this contractual nature of marriage was not the only kind of marriage to have, and that there was in fact a different template based on equal partnership, equal respect, equal consideration that could be a far more healthy, prosperous, and happy type of relationship than you’ve seen previously.
EW: I feel that relationships that don’t necessarily follow traditional models do require more communication and consent. It requires an actual conversation and agreement about the delegation of tasks and labor and responsibilities that maybe you don’t feel that you need to have or should have if you follow those traditional stereotypes.… The idea that relationships are supposed to be easy and it’s all supposed to be implicitly understood, and you’re just meant to get each other, it’s bullsh*t! It’s impossible!
A lot of the healthiest relationships I’ve seen have been between same-sex couples because, I think, they have to sit down and agree [on] things. They agree [on] things between them as opposed to [accepting] certain sets of assumptions and expectations that are made. I’ve also kind of become slightly fascinated by kink culture because they are the best communicators ever. They know all about consent. They [understand] that stuff because they really have to get it — but we could all use those models; they’re actually really helpful models.
Anyway, I truly am geeking out. I’m so happy I got to meet you. Your book was one of those books that made me go, ‘Holy sh*t!’ So, thank you for writing it and for all of your research and hard work.
VH: Thank you for being an ambassador that publicizes this message, because this is, I think, the critical message of our time. We have got to get it together. Men and women have got to make peace between each other so that our world has a future.