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?

Not interested in EW bashing at all. I admired her speech for the He for She campaign, DD is a big Harry Potter fan and we'll be going to see Beauty & the Beast. I'm disappointed that she posed topless.

Feminism is about being given the same opportunities as any man. Anyone, male, female or other should be able to make a choice about whether they cover up or do a nude photo shoot, without being bashed for that decision. If you feel that EW shouldn't do what she did, ask yourself are you a feminist or an oppressor? You can't be both.

I'm a feminist who thinks women (or men) shouldn't do nude photo shoots.

"f you feel that EW shouldn't do what she did, ask yourself are you a feminist or an oppressor? You can't be both"

I don't think she had a free choice to "do what she did". I think she is wearing a uniform as compulsory as a police officer's or a person on the check out at Sainsbury's. My question is why the uniform she is given to wear means that she can't move without showing her breasts.

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

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

Absolutely - someone with such a huge name as EW? naturally it will be from a certain clothing range. Or on the other hand they see the money they can make and as a business woman CHOOSE an outfit :) Being a feminist is not someone who criticises another woman's choice - it's demanding that we are giving the same choices as men. And If EW wants to dress that way then I applaud her - freedom of choice :)

^MutePoint Mon 06-Mar-17 22:49:46
I'm a feminist who thinks women (or men) shouldn't do nude photo shoots^

And that's absolutely fine Mute - as long as wouldn't deny the right of any other woman or man to do a nude shoot :) .

Bertrand
Pornography involves the objectification of human bodies for sexual gratification.... Granted, no one has actually used that word - I used hyperbole, a technique you celebrated in an earlier post, but some have certainly argued that EW is objectifying herself for the benefit of the 'male gaze' with the clear implications of sexual gratification that derives from it.

You seem tribally connected to the 'militant' feminism being expressed on here by some - quick to pick holes in those that seek to argue against their position - but oddly don't actually seem to really seem to say anything that aligns with it.... Actually, when you have proferred a view, rather it often seems much more aligned to mainstream... feminist certainly, but not the militant feminism you seem to wish to defend.

It's like your Liz Kendall... Too engrained with Labour tribe to realise you're not actually really Labour at all!

You're not your...

My question is why the uniform she is given to wear means that she can't move without showing her breasts

It's a static shot. Your point might be valid if she had launched into a Pete Townshend windmilling arms routine.

I'm a feminist who thinks women (or men) shouldn't do nude photo shoots

She isn't.

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 doesn't- particularly in the context of the whole shoot

I think it's interesting that there is nothing sexy at all about that photo except the fact that you can see some of her boob.

The hair, makeup, rest of the outfit are clearly in no way designed to appeal to men in any traditional way.

I think it only objectifies her in as much as any other person is being objectified when used as a canvas for fashion.

And I think it's really interesting that some of the apparent 'feminists' seem to be the only one's trying to stop another woman's choice. Has to be coerced. Obviously made to do it.

Anyway little pleb me - just looked in the mirror and thought I looked nice? meh.I love pink, glitter, make up Apparently that makes me not a feminist - who knew :)

I don't think she had a free choice to "do what she did". I think she is wearing a uniform as compulsory as a police officer's or a person on the check out at Sainsbury's. My question is why the uniform she is given to wear means that she can't move without showing her breasts.*

Really? After she absolutely unequivocally said no to wearing a corset for beauty and the beast and lost out on La La Land because of other demands she wanted in place, which shows she's very willing and able to say no and not bow to pressure, even if it means losing out on roles etc. She's not a small easy to push around woman Bertrand in the industry or the world. I'm surprised you of all people would demean her like that and try and say she was

I don't think she had a free choice to "do what she did".

I'm sorry, but what on earth makes you think that EW is the kind of person who would or could be forced to pose in a way that exposed part of her breast if she didn't want to! Have you seen/heard her!?! You're clutching at straws.... There are millions of horrendously oppressed women in the world. To claim EW is one of them, being made to pose for (supposedly) erotic pics for the benefit of lecherous men is insulting to EW and those women who feminism should be focussing attention on.

I'm not defending anyone's position but my own.

^greenworm Mon 06-Mar-17 23:02:20
I think it's interesting that there is nothing sexy at all about that photo except the fact that you can see some of her boob.

The hair, makeup, rest of the outfit are clearly in no way designed to appeal to men in any traditional way.^

picks up the you just lost the in YOUR opinion sentence'

I'm a feminist who thinks women (or men) shouldn't do nude photo shoots

Surely that stretches the definition of "nude" to absurd proportions!

Checks thread. Nope, nobody's said that. In the kindest way possible, you do sometimes miss stuff in theads Bert

Sends sad message back to her younger self telling her not to bother. Well I'm sure EW isgetting that message right now. Hearing it while still young.

Huh? Are you saying I should have prefaced my post with "in my opinion"?

I think it only objectifies her in as much as any other person is being objectified when used as a canvas for fashion

I think that is correct. Although I'm not sure if this is fashion as such- it's at the level of esoteric design rather than pure fashion.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying Green worm as in who are you to state as fact that no one would find that photo 'sexy'.

Feminism is really so simple to me - not judging any woman on how she looks or how she chooses to dress, not offending a differing opinion by claiming she's co-erced by a man. Yes, you may not agree with that opinion but this thread just shows how outrageous it is if you dare to differ from want to look attractive (has to be for a man, couldn't possibly actually like EW photo, and couldn't possibly actually love hair, make up, sometimes revealing clothes! clutches pearls

This censorious 'feminism' that seeks to preach and repress sexual expression (unless it's done on their strict terms that involves nothing that may be visually attractive to heterosexual men) is toxic and undermines and distracts from the work needed to support the millions of genuinely repressed women worldwide. Unless feminism can be reclaimed from this Puritanism, it should be left to militants, and work to free and improve the lives of those millions of oppressed women worldwide should be undertaken under another banner. The longer the promotion of women's rights is associated with the repressive views of militant feminism, the longer it will take to achieve those rights.

My question is why the uniform she is given to wear means that she can't move without showing her breasts maybe because she said it herself?

lYes. That's exactly what I'm saying Green worm as in who are you to state as fact that no one would find that photo 'sexy

Well that isn't what I stated.

My point was that it wasn't at all sexy in a traditional way, in the way one might assume, based on some of the comments on this thread about how objectifying and titillating and therefore what a disappointment to feminism it is.

Also I started my post with "I think" which is pretty much synonymous with "in my opinion".

I think we're on the same side anyway, I like the photo, find it very interesting, and think it's really harsh that she's being accused of not being a real feminist.

I don't think she had a free choice to "do what she did"

Total bollocks. She is a rich straight white female. She has way more choice than anyone