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?

Ah well, that'll teach her and other young women: don't say you are a feminist or everything you do will be scrutinised and criticised by women who are considerably more feminist than you.

"It is my God given right to make fun of people who become hysterical and screechy over three inches of underboob."

Of course it is. Having a sensible discussion would probably be more interesting and show you in a better light, but you go right ahead. Fill your boots.

I would be quite interested in seeing some of this hysterical screechyness, by the way. I might enjoy making fun of it too.

'Ah well, that'll teach her and other young women: don't say you are a feminist or everything you do will be scrutinised and criticised by women who are considerably more feminist than you.'

I agree ^^

and I never liked her/think she's a crap actress/don't think she's intelligent etc etc .

You know her so well not even I know that much about her.

The problem is that some of us are tying to talk about the objectification of women and how we feel very uneasy that it is seen as OK- in fact practically obligatory- for women promoting anything, even a film for children, to wear clothes that show a lot of skin.

I agree that objectifation of women should be challenged, but I really don't believe that EW's 'topless' photo objectifies her. To be objectified is to be reduced to your bodily parts... In the context of her film and her wider public profile, (irrespective of whether you like her) she is clearly much, much more than a 'pair of tits on legs'.

Those criticising her for this minimally erotic photo are the ones repressing women's freedom of expression and seeking to shame women into dressing in a way that hides their femininity. It's warped and deeply unfeminist.

Emma is screeching in the interview where's she's expressing her amazement at the amount of publicity that photo has brought (yeah, right, Emma - you didn't see that coming )

She screeches that feminism is about freedom and choice (thanks for explaining, Emma) but forgets that those things come with responsibilities. Still, she's got a film to promote ...

Why is it that someone who presents themselves in a way that other may find sexually attractive objectifies herself? Does the fact a woman has boobs that are in any way identifiable mean everything else about her pales into nothingness? Must all women dress in an androgynous unsexual way or be criticised by 'holier-than-thou' feminists?

She screeches that feminism is about freedom and choice (thanks for explaining, Emma) but forgets that those things come with responsibilities.

Yes, responsibilities to not be cowed or cajoled into dressing in a particular way, be they misogynistic men or asexualistic feminists!

I thought using language like "screeching" was silencing and anti feminist?

^If this is supposed to be beautiful, it fails, big time. Emma Watson looks much better in her everyday clothes^

Vestal Who needs misogynistic men to criticise women and how they dress when they have feminists to do it for them!

"Must all women dress in an androgynous unsexual way or be criticised by 'holier-than-thou' feminists?"
No, they mustn't.
Can I ask something? Have you read what I -and others- have posted on this subject and not agreed? Because you seem to be saying that we have said things that I don't think we have.

Why is it that someone who presents themselves in a way that other may find sexually attractive objectifies herself?

Or even in a way that just the person themselves finds attractive?

It's this "male gaze" thing - everything women do is for the "male gaze" - never for oneself.

I don't like EW and she comes across as a bit of a pretentious prat in that video but I agree with this I agree that objectifation of women should be challenged, but I really don't believe that EW's 'topless' photo objectifies her. To be objectified is to be reduced to your bodily parts... In the context of her film and her wider public profile, (irrespective of whether you like her) she is clearly much, much more than a 'pair of tits on legs'.

Those criticising her for this minimally erotic photo are the ones repressing women's freedom of expression and seeking to shame women into dressing in a way that hides their femininity. It's warped and deeply unfeminist.

I don't think OP really gives a shit about any of this,she just wants some (screeching)EW bashing.

Bertrand I think coconutella may have had Vestal's posts in mind.

Just to note, the "shout out to all the beautiful women" quote on the photo posted by FreeNiki is not attributable to EW. It's just a random internet meme.

The Beyonce quote attributed to EW is verifiable as a genuine quote.

1. She's not topless

1. She can wear what she wants

If this is supposed to be beautiful, it fails, big time. Emma Watson looks much better in her everyday clothes

Vestal Who needs misogynistic men to criticise women and how they dress when they have feminists to do it for them!

Oh I so agree. It's a regular theme - feminists won't tell you what you can or can't wear- of course they won't. They will just pity you for your lack of understanding that you can't make a free choice- you are not dressing to please yourself- it's for the male gaze.

The more I look at the photo, the more I think if the bed-jacket's left-hand side (as you look at the image) was shifted two inches further to the right, there wouldn't even be this debate.

It's an interesting photo. It's almost androgynous - if you cover the underboob on the left, it could be a young male posing.

I don't think OP really gives a shit about any of this,she just wants some (screeching)EW bashing

Oh I agree. I think the OP is delighted EW has made a faux pas.

I think EW dresses well , is pretty but that's about it. The capelet looks odd. It would have been a lot better if they had paired it with any one of a number of alternative white lace and tulle Burberry dresses or there is a black lace dress which would have been far more dramatic. It would also look good over floor length black silk or velvet dress.

Lass
You are right...thanks. That post was more in response to Vestal and Mute's "feminism" than anything Bertrand had posted.

The point Bertrand and myself appear to disagree on is whether EW's photo promotes the objectification of women... I argue it doesn't.

It's an interesting photo. It's almost androgynous - if you cover the underboob on the left, it could be a young male posing.

Indeed! Bizarre that some seem to think this is next to pornographic!

Emma Watson looks much better in her everyday clothes

She looks beautiful no matter what. Quit shaming people

"Indeed! Bizarre that some seem to think this is next to pornographic!"

Those criticising her for this minimally erotic photo are the ones repressing women's freedom of expression and seeking to shame women into dressing in a way that hides their femininity. It's warped and deeply unfeminist.

Just this really - sums it up for me. And really offensive that somehow women who like to dress in this way are in some way coerced by a man

Do you really think that women contracted to big labels and to film distributors actually get to choose what they wear?