So the lovely and talented Emma Watson, of Potterverse and now Disney fame, did a photo shoot for Vanity Fair. Among the shots was one in which the actress is shown wearing a white-rope Burberry open weave top that revealed the shocking fact that she has breasts.
Since Watson has been an advocate for feminism, her decision to expose portions of her breasts to public view was seen as contradictory by some. Julia Hartley-Brewer, a BBC radio commentator, tweeted: “Emma Watson: Feminism, feminism… gender wage gap… why oh why am I not taken seriously… feminism… oh, and here are my tits!”
This ignited a firestorm of rebuttal from the Watson fandom community and others, suggesting that Ms. Hartley-Brewer did not understand feminism. Hartley-Brewer has defended her point, saying in effect that she believes it’s hypocritical to pose for a picture like that and rail against women being judged for their bodies.
I don’t see the hypocrisy.
But perhaps I am missing key insights into feminist theory that would make it clear to me. So I turn to the SDMB.
Yeah I don’t see it either. I thought one of the points of feminism is that a woman should have control and say over when and how much of her body is seen and in what context. Posing for this photo shoot was her choice, so I’m not sure how this contradicts anything else she has said or done on the subject.
These days it seems everything a women does is #feminism. Having children? feminism. Riding to work? Feminism. Got constipation? feminism.
Ms Watson is an actress. As such her face and body are; part of her “assets” (man I felt dirty writing that ), the same way bulging biceps were Arnies or Slys. There is no feminism or anti-feminism involved; she undertook a shoot for I presume more money than most of us will see in a decade. Which is probably why she would not be taken seriously as a feminist role model; not her gratuitous display of mammary glands, but the fact she lives ijn an artificial and completely unrepresentative lifestyle which most people cannot emulate.
There is no hypocrisy. The choice to do fashion (or glamour, or swimsuit, or even erotic) photo shoots, or what to wear (perhaps unless it was a burqa or some other most likely explicitly political choice of clothing) has nothing to do with feminism or politics in general.
It’s undeniable that there are feminists who take the position that all such photography is exploitative and anti-feminist.
But so far as I am aware (admittedly I’m no expert) Ms. Watson has never adopted this view. So this like a strawman attack: taking the views of other self-described feminists as definitional, then calling Watson hypocritical for violating them. But that’s not how hypocrisy works: you can’t be vicariously hypocritical.
Firstly, and this may be the only time I’ve ever put something in all caps that wasn’t just being silly but:
I CAN BARE MY BREASTS IN FRONT OF THE POLICE STATION AND NO ONE WILL TAKE A SECOND LOOK. (Yes, I am male.)
I think it’s reasonable to say that there’s certainly a (meaningless) double standard in place. Emma Watson’s nipples will cause no greater number of people to turn into serial murderers than mine, nor any other human beings.
And if you have young Mick Jagger, with his shirt off, wearing tight leather pants and looking all sexy draped over the back of a couch, I don’t think anyone is going to think that men are any less in their right to want to be taken seriously and given full choice of what lifestyle and occupation they choose. Being desirable is part of the entertainment occupation, male or female. That shouldn’t be a surprise.
I don’t see the problem, but then, I’ve been berated in these same boards for not having a problem with seeing a quite mild “pretty girls in bikinis” calendar in an all-male environment. No matter what choice a person makes, on any subject and of any import, there will always be someone who thinks it’s wrong.
Among many birds it is the male with more gaudy plumage.
For whatever reason, across most human civilizations regardless of continent or language, females are to be attractive:
clean
poised
polite
etc.
But it is the male that chooses.
There are exceptions. But they are exceptional.
Psychologist Joy Browne observes, it is nubile females that adorn the covers of men’s magazines.
In stark contrast for women’s magazine covers, it’s nubile females.
Watson previously expressed some misgivings about some Beyoncé videos, saying that she was conflicted about their feminist nature because they seemed too oriented toward pleasing the male gaze. It is these remarks that seem to be landing her the hypocrisy charge.
I saw, but didn’t read, an article trending on FB book to the effect of, “Emma’s tits show we still need feminism.” I think it works something like this:
Post a revealing pic of yourself online
Wait for the trolls to post what they can be counted on to post
Lecture us as if the whole world’s attitudes are the same as the trolls.
I agree with the consensus here (at most mild hypocrisy, and no anti-feminist issue).
The key distinction to me is that Ms. Watson is successful (hence no exploitation) in a field in which physical attractiveness is a key component for both men and women (hence no double-standard). It’s not like you have to look very far on the magazine rack to find attractive male actors in various states of undress.
If she were a successful businesswomen and took a similar photo shoot for a business journal then I would agree there was an issue. (And is, given that it’s pretty clear to me that women in business are weighted more heavily on their looks than men are).
I think the Beyonce comments are a bit different because while physical (and sexual) attraction are a factor for both male and female pop stars, I do think women are judged more heavily on looks than men are compared to other traits like singing, dancing, etc.
Yes, exactly. All of these things are addressed by feminism.
Having children should be a woman’s choice, not her assumed lot in life. And the same for men.
Riding to work should be as safe as it is for women as it is for men. Women, as well as men, should not be subjected to intimidation, violence and sexual assault on public transportation or on the street.
The completely unnecessary gendering of laxatives for constipation contributes to the cultural idea that men are the default human being, and women some sort of weird alternate alien species that needs special handling. (At least in this case, the price for both versions is the same; most of the time, female gendered products cost more than neutral or male gendered products.)
The reason it feels like we’re sometimes going overboard and “everything a women does is #feminism,” is because that’s true. If she’s doing it of her own accord, it’s feminist. Because for most (all?) of human history, women haven’t been allowed their own accords, and that’s what feminism addresses.
Can Emma Watson’s boob exposure be a feminist display of personal choice? Of course it can. Could it be exploitation in a male dominated industry? Sure could. I don’t think I’m in a position to say, since I wasn’t there for the contract negotiations or the photo shoot. But as she seems to be a well educated, strong, professional woman, I would be inclined to take her at her word. Respecting another woman when she says, “nope, that was empowering for me, not exploitative,” is, also, a part of feminism. (Note that those are my words, not hers; I haven’t seen a public statement from her on the issue.)
[ul]
[li]Sexual objectification of women devalues women by treating them as sex objects instead of people; diminishes acknowledgement of women’s intellectual capabilities; leads to body image issues; and perpetuates a misogynistic society.[/li]
[li]Feminism is supposed to oppose this situation.[/li]
[li] Emma Watson holds herself out as a champion of feminism.[/li]
[li]Therefore, it’s hypocritical for her to chose to sexually objectify herself (especially since the ramifications of this go beyond her and affect the female community at large).[/li][/ul]
That is: women aren’t taken seriously because men view them as nothing more than a pair a breasts, therefore women who want to be taken seriously shouldn’t reduce themselves to a set of breasts.
I don’t think I’m persuaded by that, but the intra-feminist debate over sexuality as empowering versus devaluing is hardly new (see, e.g., pornography).
), the same way bulging biceps were Arnies or Slys. There is no feminism or anti-feminism involved; she undertook a shoot for I presume more money than most of us will see in a decade. Which is probably why she would not be taken seriously as a feminist role model; not her gratuitous display of mammary glands, but the fact she lives ijn an artificial and completely unrepresentative lifestyle which most people cannot emulate.