Emma Watson Didn’t Invent “Self-Partnership”
Yes, there’s a difference between being single and being self-partnered
The actor Emma Watson recently declared herself “self-partnered” in a British Vogue interview, after confessing to a deeply relatable freakout on the eve of her 30th birthday. Watson’s declaration has a home in the burgeoning “single positivity” movement (soundtracked by Lizzo) that cheers on women’s efforts to find acceptance and fulfillment outside monogamy.
Most reactions to Watson’s “self-partnering” framed it as a slightly silly term for a personal choice. But it’s more than that. In her Vogue interview, Watson pointed to the “bloody influx of subliminal messaging” — in advertising, media, and society at large — telling women they are incomplete by themselves. This messaging is deliberate and well-entrenched: As much as we like to pretend otherwise, we haven’t yet fully exorcised the patriarchal ghosts that peg a woman’s existence to that of her father or husband. To overtly reject this — to, yes, “self-partner” — is, quietly, a radical act.
The mocking of Emma Watson is just the latest proof that even fame and professional success can’t counter the force of romantic narratives. Since the earliest days of celebrity culture, Hollywood gossip magazines have eagerly reported on the husband and the…
