Emma Watson rewarded with board position at Kering

[Shedbuilder]

Kering is the giant women's fashion group that owns Gucci and several other big names. Apparently she's seen as something of a prize because she wears sustainable clothing. (As the owner/ wearer of several shirts and jackets older than Watson herself, I want to know why they didn't call me.)

So add Gucci, Balennciaga, Saint Laurent etc to the boycott list.

www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jun/17/emma-watson-joins-board-of-kering-the-luxury-fashion-giant-behind-gucci

So add Gucci, Balennciaga, Saint Laurent etc to the boycott list.

That's going to be an easy one

No problems with that!

I can't even spell Balenciaga properly, so imagine how devastated I am.

Great. No need to save up for years to buy a fucking tee shirt.

I can't balance an Aga properly either. They're really heavy!

So Emma can swan about wearing a jumper that cost three months of my rent, and I'm supposed to cheer her feminist credentials because it's "sustainable"? Lord.

I wouldn’t have thought that Emma Watson’s fans are in much of a position to buy those brands ..... it’s older women. But hey! Fashion is youth obsessed.

"Having lost Stella McCartney – arguably the world’s most ethnical luxury label – to LVMH earlier this year, recruiting Watson is a coup for Kering, which is keen to win over millennials."

Do they mean... Ethical??

So add Gucci, Balennciaga, Saint Laurent etc to the boycott list.

Right you are!

Not sure how I feel about this, to be honest:

On the one hand, I really don't care about how this does or does not relate to the whole JKR debacle. I'm dead serious about my belief that people ought not to be punished for their personal opinions and for voicing them publicly - and this applies equally to people with whom I disagree.

What does bother me a bit, though: women are still famously underrepresented on boards all over (though the Kering Group in particular is actually really good on that front). And there are so many awesome, talented and committed women who've worked so incredibly hard and would kill for a position on a board of that calibre. Why give the position to an actor with hardly a proven track record in business instead? It's not as though they didn't already have an arts world rep on there (they do).

The job could have gone to a more deserving woman (albeit arguably one with a bit less celebrity power). But then, I'm just not much into mixing celebrity and business in the first place. Would have bothered me as much or more if they'd decided to put Justin Bieber on a board.

Why not give the position to someone who's actually worked for it and knows something about the business?

Giving the job to Watson's like sticking a Maserati badge on a Nissan Micra.

Yes it does bother me too that they put a woman who is a highly visibile clothes horse actor in rather than a woman who has worked through the business. 'Twas ever thus.

But I shall have no problem boycotting. The only time I go near* any of these shops is at airports, and that ain't going to happen for a while.

*near = walking past the front of them.

'Diversity' is so boring and glamour-free when it is applied to low income groups.

It sort of ends up being 'exclusive'. Who knew.