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?

Man poses for sexy pictures. Your point?

It's the Diet Coke argument all over
again.

A man did something vaguely similar once. So that makes it OK for women generally to be objectified.

Why shouldn't a feminist pose topless? Feminism is about free choice and equality.

Do you think less of men who pose topless? Does it detract from all their other achievements?

She is clearly a silly attention seeker.

It is just foolish, and denying history and societal norms to say that there is no difference between a man and a woman appearing in public naked from the waist up.

My point was that a previous poster claimed that none of the other Harry Potter actors had been sexualised, and this is patently not the case. Also, Daniel Radcliffe performed nude in Equus.

And Watson is not naked from the waist up.

However, I do recall you slating Watson because she KNEW the attention she'd get from the gutter press and therefore the disgusting response of men others to her wearing whatever the fuck she likes for one picture in a full shoot is HER RESPONSIBILITY. Vile.

To be fair, the whole shoot is pretentious and ridiculous.

It's the Diet Coke argument all over
again

I know. Can we just have a sticky? They were stupid, offensive and sexist and irrelevant.

Also, Daniel Radcliffe performed nude in Equus

I think every male leads in Equus has been. My recollection is that it is integral to the play ; so another irrelevant point.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39170490

Fantastically annoying mannerisms to watch and listen to in my opinion, but she has a point for sure.

To be fair, the whole shoot is pretentious and ridiculous.

Different to anti feminist that, isn't it.

That video nearly killed me, had to stop watching after 3 seconds. She comes across as so pretentious....

I am surprised that she is a good actress. The art of acting is to make the character non-pretentious, ie authentic and real.

I'm puzzled how she can be authentic and real within a character, but when being 'herself' she is not 'herself' at all IYSWIM.

I also think it's suspicious to have her boobs out like that. A PP made a great point on another thread on how Lady Gaga wears revealing clothing but not in a male-gaze objectified way. This EW photo is all about the male gaze, or the fantasy of the male gaze for women, as it's a women's mag.

The video comes across as what she's saying is actually

"Feminism is not about you, nor you, nor you, it's about me, me, me, me, memememe "

Daniel Radcliffe was performing a ROLE in a PLAY because he is an ACTOR!

Do you get it?

Ffs.

Radcliffe performed nude for an artistic play, Watson posed clothes for an artistic photo. Do you not understand the concept of art?

I'll also add that the media sexualized the hell out of Radcliffe 's nude performance, probably more so than Watson's clothed shoot. And Lewis has been sexualized constantly. But according to the screechers, they are boys so THAT'S DIFFERENT.

The strangest thing is that Emma Watson claims to be confused about the fuss. She is an incredibly smart woman and I am surprised she doesn't get it.

She is a feminist and she is correct that the end goal of feminism is freedom of choice for women to do whatever the hell they like with their bodies.

The other side of the coin is that we haven't reached that end goal yet. We are still oppressed and unable to wander around topless like men. We are still oppressed by the endless overwhelming emphasis on our appearance that far exceeds that applied to men.

While in this transitionary period, not all decisions on what we do are equally feminist and supportive of the feminist cause.

Making money out of posing topless for a magazine isn't a feminist act. It might be liberating for Emma, but adds just a little extra to the oppression the rest of us experience on a daily basis.

So yes, she is a feminist, yes she should be able to go topless if she wants to, but unfortunately in the current climate, yes, posing topless for money is an antifeminist action.

Oh come on. She's not exactly in the invisible space hopper pose, sucking a push pop 🙄

It is distinctly anti- feminism to dictate what a woman should or shouldn't do. Tying it to her role as a UN ambassador is ridiculous. Men widely accept that men shouldn't be discriminated against or victimised for their choices, but I've never seen any male actor or model be lambasted for their decision to pose in a sexually overt way.

Feminists shout that women shouldn't pose topless. The same type of people say a woman shouldn't wear a burkini on a beach. It seems a PP's idea of a guide to just the right amount of flesh to show in public would be useful to all of us who believe that women have the right to equality in society. Wouldn't want to accidentally make it clear we're happy to be paid less by showing a little too much cleavage.

If David Beckham posed topless (or just in underwear) do we think there would be a 20 page thread on a Dadsnet forum.

I'm happy for anyone to wear anything they like, or nothing on the beach. It isn't the same as making money out of posing naked, while sitting glaringly in the public eye.

After Miley Cyrus made a big deal of still being a feminist while twerking semi-naked, I got abuse at work (university, male dominated environment). It's simply true that high profile women making money out of sexualizing themselves has a negative knock on effect on women attempting to work professionally in other areas.

I am a feminist, and I am very aware that I make plenty of anti-feminist choices every day. The important thing is not to lie to yourself, or pretend everything is fine and equality has been achieved.

If David Beckham poses naked, I won't be asking my work colleagues to 'get you're cocks out then' the next day at work. Or ask them to defend not putting up naked pictures of men during lectures when its 'common in public'.

I've worked in a male dominated environment for over 25 years.

Miles Cyrus twerking did not lead to me being abused. In fact, given my industry is construction, arguably my colleagues should have been clamouring to have me half naked swinging on a wrecking ball. They weren't.

You were abused at work because your male colleague was a twat. Not because Miles Cyrus was twerking.

I'm struggling to get celebrity male pictures of their erect penis. Surely if men did this they would be raking the money in.

Don't get female celeb pictures of their foof either. Your point is?