# Feminism, Emma Watson, and . . . er. . . tits **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544 "2017-03-06T14:56:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/41 "2017-03-06T19:06:54Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > There is a double standard. As a man, when you get constipated, it’s just like any other day. Not If I continue to eat Turnips regularly. Full of fibre and not much else. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/42 "2017-03-06T19:49:17Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Picture of Male Race Car Drivers: Fairly common to have them in provocative poses, many F1 racers have been well-known playboys. F1 isn’t the only thing in racing. Here’s a pic of Top Fuel driver [Antron Brown](http://www.lvms.com/images/z1-antron-a-lg.jpg). And here’s a typical pic of Funny car driver [Courtney Force.](http://www.womenfitness.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Courtney.jpeg) [Nothing to see here, folks](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rHdpQU4twT4/maxresdefault.jpg). There’s tons of photos of Don Garlits dressed like [this](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d5/4b/0e/d54b0e82d34418b51f87149e1df22c9d.jpg) I’m sure. NASCAR? Jimmie Johnson publicity photos look like [this](https://d1moysbdfluzeo.cloudfront.net/uploads/production/48-driver_1.jpg) . Danica Patrick’s look like [this](http://www.speakerscorner.me/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/danica_patrick6.jpg). Call it empowerment, call it self-exploitation, I dunno. But there’s a double standard. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/43 "2017-03-06T20:51:57Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Isn’t the argument something like: > > [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). As noted, a man can dress sexily on the cover of a magazine and we don’t have a problem with objectifying men. If it requires that women dress like nuns for us to respect them, that’s not a problem with women, that’s a problem with men. Given how widely the rules of ‘modest’ clothing have changed - today’s grandmas dress like sluts - I think it’s reasonable to say that there’s no particular style of dress that is inherently going to make men become more sexually aggressive than any other style of dress. And given the wide difference in how women are treated from one country to another, I would say that it’s reasonable to assume that men can still learn to appreciate women for what they have between their ears just as much as women do about men. Which is to say, the majority of everyone is going to objectify the other gender for the first few decades of their lives, equally, then mellow out and start paying attention to more than that. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/44 "2017-03-06T21:22:57Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Yes I have, just not by you. Oh, okay, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba9def/32.png) [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Asking_Questions)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/45 "2017-03-06T21:28:35Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > As noted, a man can dress sexily on the cover of a magazine and we don’t have a problem with objectifying men. If it requires that women dress like nuns for us to respect them, that’s not a problem with women, that’s a problem with men. It’s not just a “problem with men”. Why is [this](http://www.edmontonjournal.com/cms/binary/7006274.jpg)the beach volleyball uniform for men, and [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/Brooke_Sweat_and_Jennifer_Fopma_at_Hermosa_Beach_2012_%282%29_%28cropped%29.jpg) is for women? Why is [this](http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/a266c3e53d665b504f91d50274fed6290ce8b6f8/c=98-109-2328-3083&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/07/USATODAY/USATODAY/635562575530743774-cxx-rodgers-26.jpg) an NFL uniform and [this](http://static.makers.com/styles/homepage_carousel/s3/field/image/Pretty.Strong..jpg?itok=RFpY5rvi) is a Women’s football league uniform? Why in these sports is it assumed that viewing the hot bods is the sole reason to watch, instead of judging the women on their skills in the sport? If no one is watching Women’s Pro Beach Volleyball when the competitors wear tee shirts and shorts, then maybe you need to rethink your marketing plan. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/46 "2017-03-06T22:30:19Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Wait, does that mean Emma Watson could earn _bonus_ feminism points for a photo shoot where she poses as, like, a dominatrix? No way. You see, Dominatrix (Dominatrixes??) are victims of the patriarchy. They’re a bit messed up and only act this way in order to satisfy men desires and to fit in their fantasies. They _appear_ to be in a position of power, but in fact they’re objectified, submit to men and follow their sexual narrative. Tss, tss…you didn’t study well your RadFem 101 course. You didn’t think they wouldn’t have had a prepackaged answer to this obvious objection, did you? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/47 "2017-03-06T22:38:51Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > Why in these sports is it assumed that viewing the hot bods is the sole reason to watch, instead of judging the women on their skills in the sport? If no one is watching Women’s Pro Beach Volleyball when the competitors wear tee shirts and shorts, then maybe you need to rethink your marketing plan. I suppose it’s not the _sole_ reason, but it’s certainly a common one. Isn’t “rethink your marketing plan” what the women’s beach volleyball organization already did, and that rethinking is what led them to the current “uniform” that sells way more tickets than tee shirts and shorts? ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/48 "2017-03-06T22:42:35Z")
One of the points of contemporary feminism as I understand it is that women’s bodies are not mere objects of sexual desire, and and that women should be able to dress as they feel comfortable without worrying too much about how it will affect the men who happen to see her. Obviously, a woman can dress in a manner calculated to arouse hetero men, but a woman might dress in something more revealing that a burka for many reasons, such as comfort, sports, breastfeeding, fashion, etc. Simply showing skin, even breasts, shouldn’t (as I understand feminism to be saying) necessarily be interpreted as “being sexy” or putting oneself on display for the male gaze. This photoshoot seems perfectly in line with those feminist claims. Despite showing quite a bit of the breasts of a very attractive young actress, there is nothing about them that strikes me as either sexual or particularly sexy. They are fashion photos, so they are clearly meant to look attractive, but there is nothing pandering or exploitative about them. They _aren’t_ showing off Ms. Watson’s breasts, they are showing off the Burberry top, that is meant to look provocative when worn that way, but it’s hard to imagine a _less_ provocative image of Ms. Watson wearing it like that. I can’t exactly spell out _why_ this is, but I think I’m fairly familiar with the “male gaze.” I like looking at sexy pictures, and it’s pretty obvious when a picture is intended to arouse me. These ones are not. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/49 "2017-03-06T23:07:26Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > ``` > The problem is that women are disproportionately, and sometimes exclusively, judged by their looks, to their unfair detriment when they have other qualities worthy of consideration. Furthermore the emphasis on their looks contributes to their treatment as sex objects. > > ``` Doesn’t posing in sexy pictures as a woman contribute to this social overemphasis on women’s looks? Imagine if, say, a man complained that there is too much emphasis on men’s wealth and then posed in front of his Porsche. > [@RickJay](#): > > ``` > Emma Watson is not posing for sexy photos to just be a sex object, she's posing for sexy photos because it advances her career and makes her lots of money > > ``` For other people, you could replace “posing for sexy photos” with “making porn”, would that still hold? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/50 "2017-03-06T23:24:20Z")
> [@filmore](#): > > I think pics like these hurt the feminism message because it’s only done with attractive women. It continues the message that a woman’s look is more important than who she is. > . Of course, it’s done with attractive women. The sexy pictures attract more views, clicks, sales because it titillates men. And pleases women too apparently, since, as **Nava** pointed out, one of the place where you will see the most attractive young women in sexy attire are _women’s magazines_. But it’s not a message that a woman look is more important than who she is. It’s not a message at all. It just aknowledges a reality : that men generally like to look at attractive mostly undressed women (and it’s not going to change anytime soon), that even women seem to want to look at attractive women, hence that showing them is going to make you money. Call it objectification if you want, but it’s plainly playing on men mostly hardwired “settings” to generate income. On an individual level, on the other hand, I think it does on the overall detracts from the acomplishments of specific women who are known (or should be known) for being athletes, or TV hosts, or whatever else (as opposed to models, actors…). But that’s their choice. These otherwise famous women aren’t in a position where you could exploit them or force their hand. Whether they do that to gain more fame, or because they enjoy displaying their attractive body, or because it’s a well paid stunt, or for whatever other reason, they do it by their own volition. Their look becomes important because they let it become important or even want it to be important. That’s entirely on them. And entirely up to them. And as for other women who don’t want to play this game, or don’t have the appearance that would allow them to play it, and feel slighted, sorry, but too bad. Their accomplishments are recognized, they just don’t have the extra boost in popularity Sexy Mc Bigboobs is getting. Presumably, they _don’t want_ to receive an extra recognition based solely on their mensurations (or if they would want and can’t, that’s nobody’s fault, anyway, not everybody is born attractive). In any case, whether or not someone else does isn’t any of their (or anybody else) business. ---
**Author:** ![Aquadementia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aquadementia/32/555_2.png) [@Aquadementia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquadementia)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/51 "2017-03-06T23:34:37Z")
Julie Andrews had boobs too. At least that’s what I hear. I’ve only seen the edited version of that particular movie. Buy you know, those boobs must have been there all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Doubticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e56c9b/32.png) [@Doubticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doubticus)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/52 "2017-03-06T23:45:16Z")
There seems to be two schools of thought on feminism. The first is that when women take part in creating imagery that can be construed as sexual, it only furthers the stereotype that women are sex objects first and human beings second. The second is that women own their sexuality and can portray it in any fashion they choose. I think it is pretty evident that Emma falls into the second category and thus no hypocrisy exist. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2017, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/53 "2017-03-06T23:57:23Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > One of the points of contemporary feminism as I understand it is that women’s bodies are not mere objects of sexual desire, and and that women should be able to dress as they feel comfortable without worrying too much about how it will affect the men who happen to see her. Obviously, a woman can dress in a manner calculated to arouse hetero men, but a woman might dress in something more revealing that a burka for many reasons, such as comfort, sports, breastfeeding, fashion, etc. Simply showing skin, even breasts, shouldn’t (as I understand feminism to be saying) necessarily be interpreted as “being sexy” or putting oneself on display for the male gaze. That’s nice, but these women have no right to control my thoughts, and no ability to affect how I feel. Regardless of her intent and motivations, an attractive woman in a revealing attire won’t leave most men indifferent. A lot of them will have sexy thoughts when seeing them, and besides the fact that it’s quite natural, I repeat : these women have exactly zero say in what I think, and zero right to control my thoughts. I don’t know who is this attractive stranger showing a lot of skin who crosses my path, and the only feeling I’m going to have will be related to her appearance. It might be “she’s well dressed” or “I hate tatoos” or “I’d like to fuck that”, but if I think anything at all, it’s not going to be related to them having a PhD or a great personality, because I don’t know that. And if my thoughts drift towards hot fantasies, which is going to be quite common because we’re sexual being, she, for the third time, has zero right to control my thoughts or to demand that I try to repress them. And my thoughts don’t affect them in any way. Sorry if they “worry too much about how it will affect the men who happen to see her”, but this worry is their problem, not mine. To each his own brain. I’m not going to censor my feelings, and I’m likely to not have much control over them anyway. And what if _their_ attire makes _me_ feel bad? For instance, makes me feel frustrated, hurt my delicate sensibilities, shock my prudish mind? What efforts should I expect from this stranger to accomodate my feelings? Finally, you admit that at least a part of this women, _do_ dress this way to appear attractive, some are specifically dressing this way to a ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/54 "2017-03-07T00:09:13Z")
And my thoughts don’t affect them in any way. Sorry if they “worry too much about how it will affect the men who happen to see her”, but this worry is their problem, not mine. To each his own brain. I’m not going to censor my feelings, and I’m likely to not have much control over them anyway. And what if _their_ attire makes _me_ feel bad? For instance, makes me feel frustrated, hurt my delicate sensibilities, shock my prudish mind? What efforts should I expect from this stranger to accomodate my feelings? Finally, you admit that at least a part of this women, _do_ dress this way to appear attractive, to attract male attention, to show off, because they seek a partner, because they want to seduce a particular person, because they want to look better than their coworkers or what not, in any case essentially _because_ of the effects their appearance will have on others. And you can’t really have your cake and eat it. Dressing sexy, regardless of your reasons, will have an affect. Sometimes the effect you seek, sometimes the effect you don’t seek. If you dress up so as to give your husband a hard on, for instance, it might give me one too. You can’t really have your cake and eat it (and by the way, there definitely are women out there who wants exactly that : that men they find attractive have sexy thoughts and men they don’t find attractive will refrain from having them. That would be ideal for everybody, but it’s not going to happen). ---
**Author:** ![Count\_Blucher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Count\_Blucher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Count_Blucher)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/55 "2017-03-07T00:11:08Z")
> [@up\_the\_junction](#): > > Isn’t the idea she’s being exploited and the poor thing needs the protection of wiser women. Given that she is wise beyond her years and has accomplished becoming an actress as well as a UN Goodwill Ambassador, the pool of people qualified to “protect her” is quite small. She’s shown good judgement so far so I see this as a non issue. Does she have breasts? Sure. That doesn’t shock me. That she has such talent, skill, and wisdom at such a young age could. Then again, I’m impressed by the early work of Mozart too. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/56 "2017-03-07T00:25:46Z")
No hypocrisy. There are as many different interpretations of “feminism” as there are feminists, but IMHO the only meaningful definitions are those that seek to assure equal rights for women and eliminate artificial barriers to opportunity. If Watson is working towards those goals, then she is a feminist in that meaningful sense and all the power to her. If it happens that Watson is gorgeous while Julia Hartley-Brewer was designed for radio, that has nothing to do with feminism. We should get that out of the way so we can get to the important issue here: WTF is with Emma’s hair? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![standingwave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@standingwave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/standingwave)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/57 "2017-03-07T01:22:47Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We should get that out of the way so we can get to the important issue here: WTF is with Emma’s hair? 😛 [Emma’s hair](http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2013/November/131105/8C9596541-SS_movies_best_roi_somethingmary.today-inline-large.jpg)? ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/58 "2017-03-07T04:16:02Z")
> [@Doubticus](#): > > There seems to be two schools of thought on feminism. The first is that when women take part in creating imagery that can be construed as sexual, it only furthers the stereotype that women are sex objects first and human beings second. The second is that women own their sexuality and can portray it in any fashion they choose. I think it is pretty evident that Emma falls into the second category and thus no hypocrisy exist. Again, though, the hypocrisy charge comes from her having previously occupied the first category when criticizing Beyonce (which of course also carries with it a side of “white feminism, amirite?”). ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/59 "2017-03-07T04:41:52Z")
> [@Count\_Blucher](#): > > Given that she is wise beyond her years and has accomplished becoming an actress as well as a UN Goodwill Ambassador, the pool of people qualified to “protect her” is quite small. She’s shown good judgement so far so I see this as a non issue. > Does she have breasts? Sure. That doesn’t shock me. That she has such talent, skill, and wisdom at such a young age could. Then again, I’m impressed by the early work of Mozart too. That post is more than a little creepy dude. She seems to be a good sort. “But, Wise beyond her years?” “Talent, skill and wisdom?” She is no great shakes as an actress, her Potter performances were at times squirm worthy, Becoming a Goodwill ambassador requires nothing more than i) being famous and ii) saying a few trite platitudes while visiting your typical Starving Africans ™. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544/60 "2017-03-07T05:59:57Z")
Watson could challenge the male hierarchy by dressing as someone gainfully employed in a STEM field. Maybe in high heels and a barely-buttoned clean white lab coat with clearly nothing under it, and little librarian glasses… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feminism-emma-watson-and-er-tits/781544.md?page=4)