To be disappointed that feminist Emma Watson has posed topless

[MutePoint]

To promote her new film. Can't these A listers just wear a classy outfit?

The full spread and interview is excellent: www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/02/emma-watson-cover-story

"Bed jacket'
"Stockholm Syndrome"

I love MN for its clever posters, I really do

I wonder whether EW is lurking! and laughing her head off. Good on you, Missus!

No wonder women are shy about breastfeeding in public when even feminists are staggered at the sight of a pair of boobs. The more boobs out the better, desexualise them, they're bloody feeding instruments.

In my local area healthy visitors have specialist breast feeding consultants to get more women breast feeding. You don't see a lot of women breastfeeding anymore because of people's attitudes. I remember reading about one idiot she said she won't breast feed because they are for sex. I blame the education system they have a lot to answer for.

But you have a pretty narrow view of feminism if you think its sole point is to enable women to wear skimpy tops.

I don't think anyone has said that, but this particular thread is about clothing and photography. The OP and the breastbeaters (HAHAHAHA) have not chosen at this time to get animated about the pay gap.

They have instead chosen to take a highly successful actress and model with a Cambridge degree (WILL YOU PEOPLE STOP MAKING ME DEFEND THIS IRRITATING WOMAN), and define her entirely by three inches of underboob in one photograph in what must be her billionth professional shoot. And call themselves feminists for it.

Mute
What's wrong with exposing some breast? How is being prudish about this empowering for women?

Also, what's wrong about dressing or being photographed in a way that recognises and celebrates your physical beauty and sexual attractiveness? Can I no longer wear anything that shows off my contours or curves for fear that it objectifies me? Is feminism the new Puritanism?!?

If a magazine is predominantly read by women it will be targeted at women, just as a magazine read predominantly by men will be targeted at men. That's just the way magazines work. They want to keep their readers so their content will be aimed at their existing readers. Mojo, for example, know that their typical reader is a 37 year old man with high disposable income. Their content is therefore targeted at that demographic

What is your point ? You keep going on about Vanity Fair being a women's magazine. It is not. Mojo is not a men's magazine. The fact one or other might have a higher proportion of readers of one sex does not make them targeted the way Playboy or Cosmopolitan clearly are. The analogy with Playboy is ridiculous. The fashion content of VF is very small compared to the rest of the content.

Would the feminists on this thread who have an issue with Emma Watson's photoshoot please provide a list of acceptable clothing and what flesh should be covered?

Would the feminists on this thread who have an issue with Emma Watson's photoshoot please provide a list of acceptable clothing and what flesh should be covered?

Good question.... skirt above the knee? Visible cleavage? Or must anything that may highlight a woman's sexual attractiveness be hidden from view? It seems there's an austere strand of feminism that would be more accurately branded 'asexualism' as it seeks to clamp down on expressions of sexuality on the grounds of it objectify the individual. This is supression of women by the back door.

For me there's no reason why a woman shouldn't dress or present herself in a way that draws attention to her physical sexual attractiveness if she chooses to do so. Most women will do this at various times knowing that appearing sexually attractive makes them feel confident and, yes, draws the attention of men who find her attractive.

The issue is only when a woman's physical features become the sole focus of attention and define her as a person to the exclusion of all other things - that's objectification. Page 3 arguably does this... the woman being portrayed as a vacant pair of boobs. Emma Watson's picture, in the context of media profile, does not. She's clearly much more than 'a hottie flaunting her underboob'.

I think women under 50 probably think it's empowering.

Us old feminists might have an issue with it. But thanks for explaining why we shouldn't.

I dont give a monkeys about her

But i am struggling to see what her Cambridge degree has to do with it

Particularly as she doesn't have a Cambridge degree.

Brown, if anyone's interested.

Us old feminists might have an issue with it. But thanks for explaining why we shouldn't.

It's a discussion. Don't be offended by people explaining why they disagree with you.

But i am struggling to see what her Cambridge degree has to do with it.

It's just one of many things she has done in her 16-year career that so-called feminists are ignoring when they define her by one single shot that they don't like.

Ah, thanks Bertrand, I stand corrected. The point still stands.

"It's just one of many things she has done in her 16-year career that so-called feminists are ignoring when they define her by one single shot that they don't like."
Actually, I don't think that's what's happening. What I see is the non feminists dismissing the things she has said about feminism and her world view and her being - UN Goodwill ambassador and her involvement in the HeforShe campaign and focussing on how gorgeous her boobs are!

You must have missed VestalVirgin's posts then.

Comment by other poster She's not topless, you can see at the waistband and at the neck it's a very sheer top and anyway with the weird bolero thing over it there's no nips on show which means it doesn't seem topless to me
Vestal's reply
Not the point. This is wearing uncomfortable clothes that have no purpose but catering to the male gaze

Question by other posters Who is it aimed at then?
Vestal's reply
Good question. Probably not at women, because I don't like it at all. She looks like she's terribly uncomfortable. I certainly do not wish to identify with her such as depicted on that photo, nor do I enjoy looking at it.

Question by other poster Isn't it more important that she makes her own choices regardless of other people's thoughts? I would gladly encourage my DDs look up to her for not letting others control her actions regarding her own body. And isn't that what feminism is about anyway?

Vestal's reply
Choosey choice feminism is about that. You know, the kind of feminism where women "choose" to be "sex workers" and are empowerfulized by ... um ... doing exactly what men want, and have forced women to do for thousands of years. What a coincidence!

I do not consider choosey choice feminism real feminism, sorry

Sorry- I don't see how VV's posts and mine are incompatible. I think that the pressure put on women in the public eye to look a particular way is profoundly disturbing. This is not a picture of a woman wearing clothes she has chosen for herself to wear on a night out- it is a publicity shot. There is nothing empowering about wearing clothes in which you cannot move without showing your nipples (unless Superglue is involved). And I stand by my point that the non feminists are focussing on her looks. Lots of "I don't like her/think she's a hypocrite/talentless/etc but her boobs are amazing"

Blimey! Lovely to see that the intellectual level of debate is. Wing maintained!

I think women under 50 probably think it's empowering.

I've always thought that "empowering" was a psychological term. Just an expression of a state of mind. Plenty of people enjoy being attractive to the opposite sex, they get a positive feeling from knowing that people are looking at them and thinking that they are physically attractive. If they enjoy that, and the others do indeed enjoy looking, then I guess there are a bunch of people feeling enjoyment. But I am not sure there is much in the way of objective criteria here? If something makes someone feel empowered, confident, enjoyment, then that is their own inner headspace?

Emma Watson always seems very empty to me. She is (over) styled by other people in multiple ways but has never found an authentic look and she lends her voice to other people's causes for the sake of her own publicity but has no genuine opinions of her own. She's a vehicle for fashion, not a woman in her own right.

I thought all the photos in Vanity Fair looked amazing. It's a shame you focused on that one Op. She shows a little side boob and the people go ewww disgusting. Put them away and cover them up.

Really? I thought the photos in VF were all dreadful. Empty posturing. Let them eat cake...

Bobo she is 26 her voice and opinion will come. You see Emma Watson I see a human being trying to make a statement and be heard. Remember she said she was scared of feminism but she's not anymore. If you read the article she is very honest about her feelings. She will find her voice as she becomes more confident. I think many of you have not given her a chance and you have to remember she is a role model for the younger generation. They are the ones who will listen to her. Where as a lot of the people on this thread are stuck in their ways.

Classy misswatch