Emma Watson's Convenient Feminism: Talk A Good Game In Between "Yoohoo, CHECK OUT MY TITS!"
First, let me just make it clear that I have no problem with titty displays -- nor do I think you are doing anything terrible to womankind if you choose to show yours off.
But on to Emma Watson, who was appointed UN Women Goodwill Ambassador and goes around talking about the horrors of "objectification," and such. As Charlotte Gill puts it at The Spectator:
Since taking up the role, she's treated us to an earful of GCSE-standard statements on sexism, gender stereotypes and body image.No one's listening, though, otherwise they would have noticed Watson's ability to contradict these very platitudes. Laughably, she once complained: 'I feel like young girls are told that they have to be a princess and fragile. It's bullshit. I identify much more with being a warrior - a fighter.' That's before a Disney executive came to her and said 'fancy being... a princess?' Because if you didn't already know - I don't know how - Watson is to play Belle in the upcoming film Beauty and the Beast.
Producers say this version will be terribly feminist, dahling! This story about a woman housetraining a hairy bloke. Frankly, I think a UN ambassador has better things to worry about than frocks and fairytales. Like - I dunno - saving the world? That someone in this position gets away with such silliness says everything about the superficiality of third-wave feminism.
And what about those boobs, 'ey? Are they not the victims of everything Watson cares about, whether that's objectification, evil photoshop and exploitative industries (cough * fashion * cough)?
Emma Watson: "Feminism, feminism... gender wage gap... why oh why am I not taken seriously... feminism... oh, and here are my tits!" pic.twitter.com/gb7OvxzRH9
— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) March 1, 2017
It's kind of amusing, in a dry way, to watch postmodern feminism trying to implement its neo-Victorian ideas about sex, as they whipsaw themselves between let-it-all-hang-out slutware one minute, and donning the hijab the next. But actually, in their warped logic, there's a kind of sense. The slutware is for the benefit of the high-status men and women of their own class, and the hijab is for everyone else.
Cousin Dave at March 2, 2017 6:41 AM
I was about to ask if Ms. Watson would like to try on a burka.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 2, 2017 6:54 AM
Well, it seems Hermione is making her clothes disappear. Textilus vanisho!
Patrick at March 2, 2017 7:08 AM
Why is there a picture of Justin Bieber in an article about Emma Watson?
mer at March 2, 2017 7:26 AM
"That someone in this position gets away with such silliness says everything about the superficiality of third-wave feminism."
It also show the irrelevancy and superficiality of the UN.
Ben at March 2, 2017 7:29 AM
Stop laughing at her!
Actresses are Earth's most valuable resource.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 2, 2017 8:36 AM
Gee. Yet another bitter soul demanding that someone act the way THEY want.
If you cannot realize that a person has a job that is different from their interests, you can't be honest.
An appeal for conservation or an observation about any other human endeavor becomes not one whit less worthwhile because of who made the appeal, except in the mind of the shallow.
The constant success of Hermione is unbearable to some, and it shows. While we're at it, damn that Tippi Hedren, that Audrey Hepburn, those other actresses operating safely in the past for their efforts at humanitariae.
Radwaste at March 2, 2017 9:01 AM
Nicely said, Rad.
In the same vein, it's important to remember that just because a blue-collar worker couldn't afford to go to college doesn't mean one can assume that person isn't well-informed in general. Newspapers and libraries exist, after all.
lenona at March 2, 2017 9:32 AM
Shouldn't we all be paying much more attention to America's inevitable first female President?
It's going to be her turn, starting now.
Something something inevitable royal family something dark side.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 2, 2017 9:51 AM
Annie Brown of the Sydney Morning Herald has a great comment about this one:
Julia Hartley-Brewer and "Others piled on with the particular glee that comes when the internet thinks they've spotted a chink in someone's armour."
Brown lays out a persuasive case for admiring Ms. Watson; who knows somewhat about objectification.
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/emma-watson-called-a-hypocrite-for-topless-photo-in-vanity-fair-20170302-guoskt.html
Canvasback at March 2, 2017 10:36 AM
Radwaste for the win.
Also, Julia Hartley-Brewer is dim if she thinks that photo is sexualized for the "male gaze," which is what the Emma-Watson brand of feminism has an issue with (not nudity itself).
Out of curiosity, I showed the photo to my husband, and he said: "That's some weird underboob with a doily on top and hipster-prairie hair. It's, like, artist-naked, not hot naked."
sofar at March 2, 2017 10:57 AM
"artist naked" - that's it exactly. I find the picture not only unappealing, but actually ugly. Certainly not sexy in any way.
Her pictures for Earth Day in 2013,on the other hand...
What's disappointing many people is that we conflate super-smart Hermione with the actress portraying her. It's sad to see that Emma Watson is (or has become) just another progressive, living in the same sheltered bubble with all the other nitwit in Hollywood. Hermione would be better than that.
a_random_guy at March 2, 2017 11:23 AM
Gog, well said, thank you.
Watson's hairstyle is a modern take on the Gibson Girl:
"The Gibson girl, was essentially an american icon, and was applied to young women generally. She was known as ‘ the new woman’ – she worked independently from men, and was usually politically active, seeking the womens vote."
http://glamourdaze.com/2011/03/edwardian-fashion-gibson-girl.html
Sofar, Watson's look and the top she is wearing is a riff on an art nouveau print I used to see in a poster at a bistro near the local mall when I was a kid (1980s). I can't find the image online.
The top is similar to art nouveau architecture in that the form/ structure is unified with or in place of the facade. Her brocade is the top, instead of a thing applied to the top.
Her look 19th and 20th century sexy/ feminist. Art Nouveau ended in 1910, before US women had the vote.
Michelle at March 2, 2017 12:52 PM
She's starting to look like a man. Not a pretty one
Commenter at March 2, 2017 3:06 PM
Gonna be a whole lot more proggy than that:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4269824/Disney-puts-gay-scene-Beauty-Beast.html
Apparently, this is just a warmup for Disney's future offerings, which will put gay and lesbian activity on screen to enlighten your 4-year-old.
One might wonder, won't parents revolt and not take their kids to see Disney films? Perhaps, but my sense is that's not key to Disney's calculations.
Disney (and it's affiliated interests) has gone fullbore crony-capitalist, and sees its fortunes as aligned with the state and friends-of-the-state like the education establishment. That's who they think their real customer is. Big Ed will use Disney as a primary means of delivering Marxist/progressivist propaganda to children. Disney and Big Ed don't expect parents to have much say in that.
BTW, that was always the real threat lurking inside Common Core... once the program was established, the Left would begin migrating the content to their own agenda. Also BTW, the breaking of the Common Core, crony-capitalist chain is also a major reason why Big Ed has gone apeshit over the Trump administration's plans for minimizing the federal government's involvement in education and for expanding the role of charter schools.
Lastango at March 2, 2017 3:55 PM
She's a twerpy little weasel-child, but who was going to take her seriously, anyway?
Crid at March 2, 2017 4:27 PM
"One might wonder, won't parents revolt and not take their kids to see Disney films? Perhaps, but my sense is that's not key to Disney's calculations."
"If you want to change the behavior of an audience or a country, if you want to replace their deeply held values with your own, you don’t tell them what to do or what to believe. They might resist. We do not like getting orders. No, you show the things being done—over and over and over. In the beginning you only imply the desired behavior or point of view, leave it in the background so that it is hardly noticed. Over and over and over you imply it. Gradually you make it more explicit. It takes years, but people come to accept whatever they see, and then to imitate it.
They cannot resist any more than a paralyzed caterpillar can resist being eaten by a wasp’s larva. They cannot do without the electric babysitter, cannot toss the damned thing out the window."
From Fred Reed.
Radwaste at March 2, 2017 5:33 PM
And I wonder how are they going to sell it on China, since the government there has a ban on LGBT characters on Film and television.
Sixclaws at March 2, 2017 7:36 PM
> And I wonder how are they
> going to sell it on China,
> since the government there has
> a ban on LGBT characters
This is a seriously fun question.
The fate of this-or-that production is unpredictable, but in the longer term sexually enriching narratives will sell themselves: They'll be pulled in to the Chinese marketplace by the enthusiasm of the consumers, not grudgingly approved by authoritarians.
'LGBT' has always struck me as a ham-handed acronym for such a broad spectrum of life, but sexual liberty, while perhaps delayed, is not going to be eternally squelched. Chinese people want stuff.
Crid at March 2, 2017 10:23 PM
Amy, you completely missed the point - It's Mardi Gras time. And, for any woman wanting to be showered with cheap beads, trinkets and attention, that calls up the famous Mardi Gras line: "Show us your tits!"
Emma was just doing Fat Tuesday. Now it's time to deal with the hangover, repent for all the things you can't remember doing, and to clean up the trash.
Wfjag at March 3, 2017 2:33 AM
Oh, Disney will clean it up for the China market. They'll bow and scrape and do whatever the Chinese government tells them to do, in order to get access to that audience. The domestic release is just virtue-signaling, for the benefit of Tom Streyers and George Soroses of the world. Hollywood has written off the American audience. China is a far more important market to them than America is. So they'll do whatever the Chinese government wants.
Cousin Dave at March 3, 2017 7:54 AM
I was a bit confused by this whole issue until I saw that Ms Watson has a new movie coming out. Then all became clear.
Despite her political opinions and her intellectual pretensions, she's an actor. A Hollywood actor. Her livelihood is made by making and selling films. She has a film to sell, and these sorts of images are pretty standard fare for female Hollywood actors selling films these days. It's the modern-day equivalent of the soft-focus Hurrell 8x10 images that actresses all had in the 1930s.
Her politicking and her 'feminism' are all very well and good, but they don't put bread on her table. This is what she needs to do to keep herself in the style to which she has become accustomed, and so this is what she does, having no other skills which will earn for her at anything like the rates that her acting work does. So all of her blathering about empowerment and 'objectifying' women goes out the window when it's her paycheck that's at stake. If she's so all-fired upset about women being 'objectified', maybe she should find a line of work where she doesn't make huge bank by specifically, directly objectifying herself - the standard job description of any Hollywood actor.
llater,
llamas
llamas at March 3, 2017 8:17 AM
From Fred Reed
_____________________________________
Or, from almost 50 years ago:
“As Brophy’s First Law says, it is not the simple statement of facts that ushers in freedom; it is the constant repetition of them that has this liberating effect. Tolerance is the result not of enlightenment, but of boredom.”
lenona at March 3, 2017 8:26 AM
I like to shout at Hollywood types: Show us your twits!
BlogDog at March 3, 2017 9:07 PM
"She's starting to look like a man. Not a pretty one"
I dunno what pix you've been seeing, but Emma cleans up very well, being neither bony nor fluffy. She has expressed herself modestly in most cases, is not seen being a slut or associating with thugs, and apparently did what she could to learn her trade from a wonderful assortment of talent on the many HP sets. I suspect that the more of the human we see, the more the shallow among us will sniff that there's nothing there, ignoring that the pedestal she was put on was theirs in the first place.
Now, I suggest if you find Emma mannish and the Victoria's Secret models bony and/or gauche (well, not Ms Swanepoel, I'm sure), you should find Kounelli Photography "down under", whose models make most look like boys.
Radwaste at March 4, 2017 11:57 AM
Look at the picture Rad. She has Bieber hair. It is bad enough on a man but it is even more unflattering on her. And most of us aren't bothered by Emma's humanity. It is the sanctimonious and shallow condemnation that causes ire. That she played a know-it-all in the movies is irrelevant. The SJW garbage is inherently offensive.
Ben at March 5, 2017 11:36 AM
Leave a comment