So, what's this entry into the blogospere about? Well, in case the catchy title didn't immediately tip you off, it's about Emma Watson's tits. More specifically, it's about a photo shoot for Vanity Fair that included this picture:
 |
| Emma Watson in Vanity Fair, March 2017. Photo: Tim Walker. Stylist: Jessica Diehl |
The image, captured by Tim Walker and styled by Jessica Diehl, depicts Watson in an all-white outfit designed by Burberry (for whom she models). And apparently of note is not the elegance of the design, nor the subtle beauty of the image or her make-up. Nope, it's the fact that she's not wearing anything under her top. That's right folks, Emma Watson, the prominent and outspoken feminist, done got her boobies out!
Not long after the article's publication, the Sun opted to emblazon the above photo with the headline "Beauty & the breasts", and a brief passage about how topless she is under her stole, and how she doesn't talk about her boyfriend. Oh yeah, and something about a film she's in. Well, talkRADIO presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer was having none of it:
OK folks, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in reading Hartley-Brewer's tweet and wondering what side of the bed she crawled out of that day. But here's the thing: Emma Watson, like Scarlett Johansson, Gal Gadot, Celine Dion, Dot Cotton, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and I'm pretty certain Julia Hartley-Brewer herself, has something in common with every other woman on the planet: boobs.
As mammals, the female of our species is provided with mammary glands that produce a lactic secretion known as milk, which is used for the nourishment of our young. Due to their general shape, the conglomeration of nerves that provide an often pleasing sensation to the bearer of said breasts, and probably some Freudian connotation, we have also applied a sensual, erotic meaning to breasts.
Now, I'll freely state that I love boobs. Both as targets of desire and in an aesthetic sense, breasts are lovely. But the presence of breasts in a photograph does not invalidate the art in the picture, nor the woman bearing them. There is - or at least, should be to the reasonable mind - a clear delineation between breasts as the providers of infant nourishment, breasts in a pornographic context, and breasts as part of a woman's body in the context of artistic expression. And in all contexts, the overriding factor is, and should always be, the woman's right to decide. And this is the keystone of feminism.
I firmly believe that a woman has the right to be whatever she chooses to be, much as I do for all people. And this seems to be difficult for some people to grasp. Now, I'm not fool enough to think that Watson's not being sexualised by some - the mere fact that she's a woman, let alone has boobs, is enough for some people to lech over. But I do consider myself intelligent enough to know the difference between a woman using her body as a medium of artistic expression, and a woman getting her tits out for sexual gratification. I have no problem with a woman being a sexual being, whether it's being sexually active, doing webcam shows or performing in porn - as long as that is her informed choice. Equally, I see no reason to object to a woman who chooses to use her body as a means to portray an artistic, creative image, whether she be modelling haute couture, performing a dance routine, or expressing confidence and strength in her body and mind.
My understanding of feminism is constantly evolving as new information comes to me. But a woman's choice is, to my mind, the paramount concern of the movement. Whether she wants to be a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, an athlete, a housewife, a rock star, a game developer, a secretary, a builder, a sex worker or a soldier, the only thing that matters is that the woman has made an informed decision about her vocation of her own free will. We're beyond the point where a woman is subordinate to a man.
This is the lesson I impart unto my daughter and to my son: the only real difference between men and women is biology. And one's biology is one's own, to do with as they see fit. I don't know if I will agree with my children's life choices as they get older, but I do know they will make those choices for themselves, having been informed as best as they can by reputable sources. And I will insist that they respect the lives and choices of others. And if either of them found themselves the subject of a photo spread in the likes of Vanity Fair, I would be proud of them.
As always, feel free to comment below, and please do +1 this and share.
4L - Love, Laugh, Live, Learn.
Al H.
Not long after the article's publication, the Sun opted to emblazon the above photo with the headline "Beauty & the breasts", and a brief passage about how topless she is under her stole, and how she doesn't talk about her boyfriend. Oh yeah, and something about a film she's in. Well, talkRADIO presenter Julia Hartley-Brewer was having none of it:
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
OK folks, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in reading Hartley-Brewer's tweet and wondering what side of the bed she crawled out of that day. But here's the thing: Emma Watson, like Scarlett Johansson, Gal Gadot, Celine Dion, Dot Cotton, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and I'm pretty certain Julia Hartley-Brewer herself, has something in common with every other woman on the planet: boobs.
As mammals, the female of our species is provided with mammary glands that produce a lactic secretion known as milk, which is used for the nourishment of our young. Due to their general shape, the conglomeration of nerves that provide an often pleasing sensation to the bearer of said breasts, and probably some Freudian connotation, we have also applied a sensual, erotic meaning to breasts.
Now, I'll freely state that I love boobs. Both as targets of desire and in an aesthetic sense, breasts are lovely. But the presence of breasts in a photograph does not invalidate the art in the picture, nor the woman bearing them. There is - or at least, should be to the reasonable mind - a clear delineation between breasts as the providers of infant nourishment, breasts in a pornographic context, and breasts as part of a woman's body in the context of artistic expression. And in all contexts, the overriding factor is, and should always be, the woman's right to decide. And this is the keystone of feminism.
My understanding of feminism is constantly evolving as new information comes to me. But a woman's choice is, to my mind, the paramount concern of the movement. Whether she wants to be a doctor, an engineer, a teacher, an athlete, a housewife, a rock star, a game developer, a secretary, a builder, a sex worker or a soldier, the only thing that matters is that the woman has made an informed decision about her vocation of her own free will. We're beyond the point where a woman is subordinate to a man.
This is the lesson I impart unto my daughter and to my son: the only real difference between men and women is biology. And one's biology is one's own, to do with as they see fit. I don't know if I will agree with my children's life choices as they get older, but I do know they will make those choices for themselves, having been informed as best as they can by reputable sources. And I will insist that they respect the lives and choices of others. And if either of them found themselves the subject of a photo spread in the likes of Vanity Fair, I would be proud of them.
As always, feel free to comment below, and please do +1 this and share.
4L - Love, Laugh, Live, Learn.
Al H.
No comments:
Post a Comment