Reverse Women’s Empowerment. Anti-Feminist. While they sound different, they’re the same thing, just different wording. In Tom Bower’s new book, Revenge: Meghan, Harry, and the War between the Windsors, he exposes Meghan Markle for being the anti-feminist that she is. Any Megxiteer who has followed the ongoing Sussex trainwreck for a period in the last five years can tell you that Meghan is the reverse of what women’s empowerment is.
This article will explore what the excerpts from Mister Bower’s book uncovered about what an anti-feminist Mehan truly is. Also, we’re going to be diving into a few things that have come out in recent times that back up some of the author’s claims.
So, let’s begin with Meghan’s innate habit of using men to get what she wants. It’s well-known public knowledge, and Tom Bower backs this up in Revenge. We addressed some of this in our Chronicles of Harkle article on the first two excerpts. Oh, and check out the UN shitshow too.
An Anti-Feminist Doesn’t Use Men To Further Herself
If there’s one reverse women’s empowerment thing that Meghan has done, it’s using men to get what she wants. Throughout her life, the Duchess of Sussex has exploited members of the opposite sex to do what she wants. For example, in a video from her teenage/young adult years, her then-boyfriend bought her “Classy Girl” licence plates, courtesy of Simple News on YouTube.
Meghan also used her dad, Thomas Markle Snr, ‘s connections to the entertainment industry. Unlike most actors who don’t have famous contacts, such as famous parents, Meghan’s father was an Emmy-nominated lighting director and director of photography. Moreover, he gave her her first speaking part on General Hospital. This allowed her to get a union card so she could book jobs.
Another anti-feminist thing Meghan has done is exploit her husbands. She semi-exploited her ex-husband, Trevor Engelson, to get her parts in the projects he was working on as a producer. He could see that she didn’t have the talent to be in such prominent roles. Not to mention, she mailed her wedding and engagement rings back to him via FedEx.
Secondly, she is doing a reverse Women’s Empowerment but exploiting her current husband, Prince Harry. She had twisted him so much that he no longer resembles the cheeky chappy he once was as a small boy before his mother passed. He follows her around, and he looks lost. However, if you ever speak out against his beloved, he throws down on you.
Green Eyed Monster
Tom Bower calls it as he hears it. So, when he says that Meghan lived in total envy of Catherine, he’s right. For a woman who claims to be about women’s empowerment, she’s doing anything but that. Her anti-feminist stance stems from her jealousy toward Kate.
In the extracts for Revenge, Catherine is described as willing to abide by the monarchy’s rules. But, according to Bower, Meghan’s apparent hatred for her shines in her comments when she whined about Catherine not having to deal with the influx of mockery aimed at her. The example given was how the Urban Dictionary had a new phrase added to its lexicon; Meghan Markle’d, which became an association of anyone who had ghosted or abandoned people.
The Duchess of Cambridge loves people and had to build her way up as before her marriage to Prince William, she rarely spoke. So the 2010 engagement interview was the first time the public got to experience who Catherine was as a person. Yes, she started as shy, but she has come out of herself over the years. We don’t know about anyone else, but Kate is more of a feminist icon than Meghan. We bet that ticks the Princess of Montecito off.
A true feminist doesn’t besmirch other women to apply more power to herself. If anything, Meghan’s anti-feminist stance is almost reminiscent of Amber Heard calling herself a domestic violence victim when there’s no proof outside of heavily edited photos. Meghan’s Mole bought up in her reading of an extract from Revenge that Meghan wanted to feature on the cover of British Vogue just as Catherine had done to mark the magazine’s 100 years in publication. However, her request was denied.
Reverse Women’s Empowerment Ruins
Meghan’s reverse women’s empowerment stance has been shown since well before she married Harry. We, the world, were just too blind to see it when she did make herself known to the world. But, as Tom Bower discovered, there was drama behind the scenes of the Reitman’s commercials where Markle was super pushy.
As publicised in the fifth excerpt from Revenge, Meghan chose to talk to her male stylist and male makeup artist (not Daniel “Crying Makeup Artist” Martin), but not the female manicurist who did her nails for one of Reitman’s shoots. So much for being a feminist and wanting inclusivity. We can only imagine what Lili will be going through as she grows up. Will she become a narcissist like her mother, or will she expose Meghan for who she is? Unfortunately, we will likely never know the answer.
The extract also mentions that all Meghan did during the Reitman’s shoots was complain about the clothes she had to wear because of how cheap they were. However, she instantly changed her tune when sales in Reitman’s stores increased by 20%, and her face was plastered around Canada.
People who worked with Meghan on the Reitman’s shoots were very vocal about her implied anti-feminist stance. They were perplexed by her diva demands and lack of collaboration on the project outside of wanting a Hollywood budget. Some of this information would’ve had to come straight from Meghan’s former agent, Lori Sale, at the time. Meghan’s behaviour was so bad that she even stole a pair of shoes and didn’t bid farewell to the crew.
The Spoilt Treatment
Meghan’s reverse women’s empowerment reflects in her demand for luxury brands. She wanted Aquazzura shoes for one of the Reitmans’ shoots. She ended up stealing the shoes. Markle News on Instagram posted screenshots from the Twitter account Remolaude Sauce, which alleges that the shoes Meghan stole were the same ones she wore during the engagement announcement.
The Instagram account also shared screengrabs by O Kingdom, also on Twitter, where they discovered that Meghan pulled the same stunt with another pair of shoes. Check out the link to see what we’re talking about.
Then, we get to the debacle of those blood diamond earrings and Harry’s obsession with security. First, Meghan lied regarding a pair of diamond earrings gifted to her by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. She claimed they were borrowed from the palace. Three weeks before the wedding, journalist Jamal Khashoggi was assassinated, with the Crown Prince allegedly having some role. Moreover, Khashoggi had a surprising connection to Princess Diana’s boyfriend, Dodi Fayed; they were cousins.
Security Row
Over with Harry’s obsession with security, Meghan allegedly thought her son, Archie was not safe without it or a title. Archie is never going to be king. Nor is Harry. Their places in the line of succession are irrelevant. Meghan thought she and Harry would shove their way to the top and be leaders.
Harry was always going to be a spare. It doesn’t matter how popular he is or thought he was. Meghan never understood the monarchy. Nor did she want to. All she cared about was making a name for herself. Well, she achieved that, but she is not adored. She’s loathed worldwide.
