She is in a profession where physical attractiveness and sensuality are at a premium. A rocket scientist; she ain’t, and she is no great shakes as a thespian either.
I suspect there is a sub-conscious; mixing up of the brainy Hermione with her actress.
The interesting criticism I’ve heard of Watson is pointing out a comment about Beyonce during an interview:
The question is, was Beyonce’s video comparable to this photo shoot? One difference (I think) is that Beyonce has a lot of directorial control over her videos, compared to Watson’s control over this photo shoot; it’s arguable that Beyonce has less to answer for in regard to engaging in a “male voyeuristic” activity.
That said, I don’t know that the two incidents are exactly comparable. I also don’t begrudge folks who change their minds over the course of five years. It’d be nice if Watson talked a little more about what she meant about Beyonce’s work, but I’m not super-fussed about it. And the idea that she shouldn’t be taken seriously because she does a photo shoot like this? Seriously, fuck that noise.
The Vanity Fair photoshoot isn’t particulary sexual/sexy, nor - being Vanity Fair and not Maxim - is it particularly aimed at the male gaze. (He said, joining in the chorus of male respondents defending Emma Watson’s right to partially disrobe in photos.) Obviously both Vanity Fair and Maxim operate by drawing an audience to sell to advertisers - but the aim of the photoshoot isn’t to sell razors and aftershave by drawing an audience of lecherous men; it’s to sell perfume and fashion by drawing an audience of women who aspire to Watson’s style/beauty. (Vanity Fair’s readership [pdf] is over 75% female, after all.)
On that basis, I think you could make a much sharper argument that Watson, by perpetuating beauty standards that are unattainable for mere mortals is, rather than encouraging *men *to objectify women, encouraging *women *to value themselves and other women on the basis of their looks. However, I believe that there has been a considerable debate on this issue in recent years and it’s reductive as hell to say that if a woman buys e.g. a fashionable top then she’s a slave to patriarchy, so it’s hardly a knock-down argument.
I like Gloria Steinem’s response:
Feminism is a big tent that includes multiple feminist ideologies. Do not expect all feminists to agree on all feminist issues.
However, I agree with you that Watson’s behavior isn’t hypocritical in any way. Feminism means that women are entitled to make their own choices about their bodies, including nude modeling.
There is also nothing sexist about using attractiveness as a basis for evaluating images whose only reason for existing is to look attractive. It would be sexist to disparage, say, a statue of Rosa Parks or a picture of Malala Yousafzai winning the Nobel Peace Prize because you didn’t happen to find the subject attractive. Those images aren’t supposed to be about beauty or sex appeal.
But actor/model photoshoots are supposed to be about beauty and sex appeal, so there’s nothing wrong with evaluating them on that basis.
I think Watson’s wrong in this quote – women (and men!) being allowed to choose what to do with their lives and bodies is one of the most fundamental aspects of feminism, and that includes choices to titillate, or even choosing to be objectified in some way, if one is so inclined.
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.
An interview with an attractive woman race driver–accompanied by sexy photos.
An interview with an attractive woman athlete–accompanied by sexy photos.
An interview with an attractive woman newscaster–accompanied by sexy photos.
An interview with a typical-looking woman–accompanied by photos where she’s fully clothed and in a setting appropriate for what she’s famous for.
While I’m sure those women feel empowered by those photos, I wonder what effect it has on women who are not super attractive with great bodies. Women are often judged by their looks, and I feel these kinds of images promote the message that it’s not enough to be good, you also have to be attractive to succeed.
“Attractive” is subjective, but such photo shoots are done for a lot of women that probably don’t meet conventional media standards of beauty – they just don’t get nearly so much attention. Further, many conventionally attractive women actually do these sorts of interviews but decline to take part in the “sexy photo shoots”.
Because of these two things, and because of how important protecting/preserving/promoting choice for women (including conventionally attractive women!) in having full control over their lives and bodies, I disagree with your point here.
according to this article its anti feminist trolls causing it
Emma Watson is a professional actress; being beautiful and charismatic is part of her job. It’s always been part of the job, and incidentally that goes for men as well as women. You’ll get the odd person who isn’t good looking but they’re pretty few and far in between. Even Hollywood stars who aren’t thought of as strikingly attractive would, in a room of 50 random people, would be noticeably good looking.
As it happens, Watson is both an outspoken feminist, an immensely successful actor, and has a great personal interest in fashion. She is also quite attractive. I’m not exactly sure where the hypocrisy lies, or what her appropriate course of action is:
Is she supposed to not be an actress? That would be rather anti-feminist, would it not? Being an actress is her career of choice.
Is she supposed to not be e feminist? But that’s what she believes in.
Is she supposed to not be beautiful? Well, she is. What’s she supposed to do about that?
I mean, I guess the idea here is that because women are judged on looks she shouldn’t show off her looks? But that’s just not true. The problem is not that women are judged by their looks, because men are also judged by their looks. 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.
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… but she also advocates for women’s rights, acts, and is active in creating fashion. Why can’t she do all those things? Why does showing off her looks negate her other actions? Nobody says that about George Clooney, who in his prime was at least as handsome a man as Watson is beautiful a woman.
It seems to me to be a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” kind of situation, in that the empowerment camp and the anti-exploitation/women-are-not-sex-objects camp are often at odds with each other.
Take this to its logical conclusion and there would be no photos of attractive people displayed lest it upset those considered unattractive by society. That isn’t the way the world works nor should it be.
If women want to show their tits more power to them. And if they’re what many consider gorgeous tits so much the better. Of course old women with pendulous tits have equal freedom to show theirs. The fact that most people will have no desire to look at them is just human nature. It sucks to be old and unattractive as I’m starting to learn as I myself age. (It also sucks to be young and looked on as unattractive too but there you go. Blame the whole sexual urge.)
I think Watson’s past objections haven’t been about women being judged for their bodies. It’s been about women being judged solely for their bodies and in situations where attractiveness is not applicable.
I believe Watson would say that you shouldn’t only judge an actress by her looks; you should judge her by her looks and her acting skills. And if you’re judging a woman as a doctor or a lawyer or a secretary, her looks shouldn’t be a factor at all.
And I don’t see this has anything to do with the wage gap. If Watson was a stripper she’d still be right if she was pointing out female strippers get paid less than male strippers doing the same job. Equal work should get equal pay.
There is a double standard. As a man, when you get constipated, it’s just like any other day.
Doing a job that attracts x many paying customers is part of the definition of thework of a stripper or an actor. It’s no violative of that principle to pay the performers more the more money they can rake in for the boss.
This is why Candace Parker doesn’t earn Lebron James money. The work of playing basketball is similar; the work of putting paying spectators in seats and eyeballs on screens is not.
I can imagine a photo shoot I would consider problematic for a person claiming to be a feminist–for example, one that seemed to be using the implication of non-consensual sex purely to infuse a quick jolt of emotion into an advertisement or something.
This is not that photo.
Yes I have, just not by you.
Wait, does that mean Emma Watson could earn bonus feminism points for a photo shoot where she poses as, like, a dominatrix?
Picture of Male Race Car Drivers: Fairly common to have them in provocative poses, many F1 racers have been well-known playboys.
Pictures of Male Athletes: Again common enough not be worthy of comment
Pictures of Male Newscasters: At least the younger ones, yes you absoluletly do have their looks commented upon.
Three of the examples you gave are of professions where looks are either a selling point or something which is to be expected, athletes tend to be attractive; who knew. Also most ordinary people prefer to look good on in pictures, its supposed to put forward an idealised version, of said profession, task or person.
Do you think pictures of Doctors, lawyers, Police Officers, Postmen, even when they are taken as part of some piece on them are not idealised? You don’t think subjects don’t wear their nicest uniform, brush their hair, clean up their surroundings?
