Thats interesting, thanks. Though I somehow doubt that modern #feminsim cares much about laxatives; the writer in the article excepted.
I freely admit the subject matter here is not one in which I have strong expertise.
The oeuvre of Beyoncé thus being something I’d probably need to research before offering an informed commentary, I can hazard a brief guess that Watson’s commentary was driven by both the visual images and the underlying lyrics. Is it possible that Beyoncé’s video combined lyrics and look to create an impression that might conflict with Brand W feminism?
I think such a video is possible – perhaps if it glorified rape or the mistreatment of women… but none of Beyonce’s videos that I’ve seen fit this descriptor.
As far as I can tell, the only hypocrisy is from the subset of feminists who think women who choose to expose themselves are doing some disservice to the equality of the sexes. It’s the same subset of feminists who denounced the majority (IIRC) of feminists who found women’s exposure in Playboy to be liberating in the 70s.
I of course can only guess at their psychology, but these subset of feminists seem to want women, or at least other feminists, to be pure as the drive snow–the exact patriarchal attitude that feminists fought against during the sexual revolution. But I guess it’s ok in their mind for the matriarchy to force social norms on other women???
'sok. Cookie? offers peace cookie
I think nudity and sexuality can strengthen the feminism message when it’s used as a personal expression of who the woman is. But when it’s done much more for marketing purposes, it waters down the message. It seems they’re saying “Don’t think of women as sexual objects…unless it’s to make money and then it’s okay.”
Women like Lady Gaga, Miley Cyrus, Cher, Madonna, etc. all have sex as part of their public personality, but it seems like it’s an extension of who they really are. They don’t care that they don’t conform to how men think women should act. That makes for a stronger feminism message.
But I don’t think Emma is really expressing her personality with that photo. It seems more like a marketing choice where by showing more skin, there are more magazine purchases, more viewers, and more tickets sold for her movies. But if Miley was in that photo, it would be because she wanted to express that she was a strong, sexual woman.
Humble Thinker:
I think it has less to do with neo-puritanism than the idea that accomplished women should be celebrated for their accomplishments rather than for their looks. It doesn’t mean that women can’t or shouldn’t have the freedom to expose themselves if they wish to, but it does mean that focusing on the looks rather than on the accomplishments is the wrong way to view that woman, and promoting such a view is wrong as well.
Thanks! Mm, lemon square, my favorite.
I think you exaggerate somewhat. The problem isn’t that some other guy out there may be having sexy thoughts when a woman dresses sexy. The (extremely common) problem is when those other guys demand or feel entitled to a woman’s attention in response to their sexy thoughts because of her sexy appearance.
Because a woman’s sexy appearance gives you sexy thoughts doesn’t give you any right to catcall her, or send her dick pics, or comment on her appearance, or try to let her know about your appreciation of her sexiness in any way. Keep your sexy thoughts to yourself where they belong, and no woman is going to try to get you to “refrain from having them”. Especially since she won’t even know you’re having them.
A woman is not trying to “have her cake and eat it” if she’s encouraging sexual attention from a specific man such as her husband, while at the same time not wanting other men to creep on her with unsolicited advertisements of their sexual reactions to her sexy appearance. She’s just adopting the reasonable position that men in general should mind their damn manners and their own business.
We won’t really know until we try.
Probably not the thread to have said that. Oh well. I agree, anyway.
If we were talking about a leaked paparrazi photo of her after some random bystander had torn off her clothes, it would be one thing, but I don’t get the impression that Emma Watson is doing any of the things because she was in any way coerced, including coercion by male-dominated society. As a feminist, it’s her choice to bare her breasts or not bare them, for whatever reason, or no reason, as she sees fit.
Once you’ve bared your breasts, you no longer have control over the photons that bounced off them, or what happens in the minds of the people who see the images, but I don’t see her fretting about that either.
I think you’re probably right, in so far as no one cares much about laxatives (until you need one). But the gendering of personal care products, clothing, toys, even tools* is a very hot topic.
*My 70s era feminist mother was OUTRAGED that I bought my 10 year old daughter a pink toolkit “for women”. I pointed out that I didn’t buy it because it was pink, I bought it because the tools were all scaled down in size and weight. I wanted my daughter to have a toolkit, but I wanted the tools to be real tools, not toys, and smaller tools, for her smaller hands and arms. If those goals had been able to be accomplished with a toolkit that wasn’t pink, I’d have gotten it. But it was pink or full size.
Emma Watson posted the Beyonce comment in its full context on her twitter today. I think it absolves her of the hypocrisy charge. Still-figuring-things-out, sure. But far from decrying Beyonce as antifeminist, she actually found her to be empowered.
So, much ado about nothing. A fragment of a quote taken out of context and used against Ms Watson because she dared expose her underboob. This is why we can’t have nice underboob.
Thanks for finding this! I agree it eviscerates the claims.
Which type of feminism. I think we’re on Feminism 3.xx or 4.0
The boob exposure seemed gratuitous in that movie, they also seemed like she had a body double for the boobs, there were what looked like edit lines around them (they might have been the residue of removing censorship blackout) and they seemed to move independently of the rest of her body.
Lefty fems have hoped for a fourth wave that would move away from a focus on individual choices to structural issues, something that’s critical of the beauty industry or the pornified culture in general. The third wave satisfies capitalists and men so it’s not going anywhere. Lefty feminists will be marginal in America for the same reason lefty-anything will stay marginal.
I said she was wise beyond her years. (I’ll compare her to Every child star screw-up since the 80s as my cite.)
I indicated she was very talented for her age. (Her speech to the UN a year or so back was very good I thought).
I tangentially compared her entertainment skills to Mozart. (Perhaps an over statement, but I didn’t think she was a horrible actress and its now coming out that she has a very good singing voice, even by competitive Disney standards.)
I agreed she had breasts & I proceeded with a “so what” attitude. (We’re MAMMALS. Get over it.)
You find that creepy? That’s just Weird.
But, two posts later you’re jumping into the discussion of laxatives (SO not creepy :rolleyes: ), so it must be a whoosh.
Real boobs do that. 
The gratuitousness was the whole point of the shot ( and the movie, really ). Not a great film ( I assume we’re talking about S.O.B. ), but the whole thing was a satire, including of the images of director Blake Edwards and his wife Julie Andrews.
Nope, they were real. She has said so herself.
Ehhh, I think that subtly is a hypocritical problem, though. On the one hand, some say women should be free to express themselves as freely as men, including sexually. But on the other hand, a subset of these same people will deride women for expressing themselves sexually because other men and woman may be objectifying them or celebrating them because of their looks. It seems anti-feminist to lay down such derision as it is the effectively the same derision that puritanical men have been laying one women for centuries and is the very same derision that feminism has been fighting against pretty much since its inception. A common feminist point is that a man’s reaction to a woman’s looks, dress, actions, etc. are the fault of the man, not the woman.
In general, isn’t telling a woman not only how she can express herself but how she should express herself anti-feminist? Isn’t a part of feminism women being free to want to be objectified as well as being free to express themselves sexually without them being blamed for others’ objectification of them?
If you’re talking about feelings, then the vast majority of feminists don’t care at all about how men feel. It’s about actions – and yes, a man’s actions (or any person’s actions), whether in response to a woman’s dress or anything else, are entirely the responsibility of the person who did them. It’s entirely a man’s fault if he catcalls a woman (or anyone), or gropes, or insults, or otherwise mistreats a woman or anyone else.