Piers Morgan bashes Emily Ratajowsi "feminist" pics

[JR Gg 12,985]

The length of these posts.  

Me leaving this thread as soon as possible:

 

[JudasIsAHolyFoo 3,278]

On 2017-12-19 at 8:35 PM, ZiggyZiggs said:

if this was a guy, he wouldn't be complaining rn. people wouldn't even care  let them do what they want y does he care  he just wants attention

edit: lmao she never even said the photoshoot was promoting 'feminism' what is he talking about take several seats  

Before the “Is Piers Morgan a Hunty?” Thread starts 

[StrawberryBlond 14,774]

9 hours ago, Bebe said:

Just a couple of points because I can't be dragged into another one of our extended debates:

"No, she's unaware in that she can't see that covering herself in spaghetti makes her look like a f***ing idiot and the exact opposite of sexy. Piers is calling out the BS that she's putting forward of how women doing stupid stuff like covering themselves in food is in any way hardcore, sexy or a perfectly reasonable way to behave. I mean, I can't even believe that I'm having a straight-faced discussion about why this entire concept is ridiculous and not empowering to women at all."

Not arguing that this photoshoot empowers all women. Neither is Emily. I've actually already laid out a few of the reasons why I find the shoot stale and what I find problematic. The argument I'm having is that this can be empowering for her, it doesn't negate her being a feminist and she shouldn't be shamed for expressing herself in that way - it's her body, her choice, she can represent herself how she feels fit.

"and she did say it was feminist, she said alongside her LOVE promo: "Personal choice is the core ideal in my concept of feminism. I’m tired of having to consider how I might be perceived by men if I post a sexy Instagram. I want to do what I want to do. Feminism isn’t about adjusting, it’s about freedom and choice." When Piers said what he did, she tweeted: "Lol, never said my love video was a feminist statement.’ Even though that was just the very thing she did"

She still doesn't say that the picture itself is feminist! She doesn't say it once! That's not what her original statement implies! She is basically saying that there is no contradiction in being a feminist and also participating in a photoshoot. There is a difference between saying "I have bodily autonomy, I'm free to do with I want with my body, and I want to express myself like this! And guess what! My feminism say's that's okay!" and saying "What I'm doing is explicitly feminist". It's this distinction that neither you or Piers seems to be grasping.

"Thing is, whenever the idea of women's right to choose comes up among these women, it's always about their bodies and their sexuality. It's like they think the only choices that exist are sexual ones"

No it's not, it also comes up in discussions of reproductive rights, consent and a range of issues. Emily is a model, who happens to be provocative and sexual - that's the criticisms she mostly receives so of course that's what she addresses the most.

"Most women do not live in a society where their body is shamed."

I know you like to basically claim that in the U.K there is no structural racism and that kind of stuff - but you can't seriously also pretend like the U.K there aren't particular ideals about what a woman should look like or how they should dress.

"Nah, men have been wanting that from me for years, which is why I don't give them it. You want to see my body? You have to work for it, but not through money, through respect and love. Those who are truly proud of their bodies don't feel the need to show them off as they have nothing to prove and as they're so proud of it, they want to keep it reserved for only a select few to see."

But see that's the kind of judgment I feel is in pretty poor taste. You have every right to make the choice to stay covered up - that choice is perfectly valid and great - but there are plenty of women who are proud and comfortable in their body and don't mind showing off skin. How unfair would it be if I said something like "Well, those who are truly comfortable with their body have no hang ups with their body and have no problem with stripping down!"? I don't believe that to be true, but I also don't believe what you have written is true  People are diverse and people have different levels of comfort when it comes to how they express themselves - either way is valid. You feel empowered and defiant when you cover up! Brilliant! I won't judge that, I won't argue against that. I'm also not going to judge or argue against women who feel empowered and defiant when they express their sexuality in a different way to you.

"Covering up is the true defiance. I know it is because any woman who does is called a prude and told to flash some flesh. "

Again, glad you feel defiant when you cover up, but don't act like women aren't told to cover up when they show a little flesh. Don't start acting as if your choice should be every woman's choice or start policing other women on how they should feel. One of my closest friends is a feminist, she recently did a TED talk about image-based abuse, something she is unfortunately very familiar with. Stalkers found innocuous images of her online from facebook -not only from her page but from her friends profiles, her university, the bars she frequented all posted pictures - they even found images on her linkedin, from her media appearances (she also happens to be a chess champion) and anywhere you could imagine and edited them into ****ographic images. Her face would be taken from those images and photoshopped into images of women naked or having sex, she would wear a jumper and they would edit the picture to make it seem like it was see through - whatever they could do.

When she first went public with her story, she was immediately slut shamed and judged because she has large, natural breasts that happen to be, unavoidably, rather obvious. She was judged for wearing dresses that showed some cleavage and would cut off just above her knee. That apparently made her a 'dumb slut' who should cover up. Because she has large breasts and has skin showing - she apparently brought everything upon herself. I'll tell you right now, she occasionally feels like she wants to show off a little bit - Her body has been shamed since she started growing breasts at 13, she has constantly been told that she needs to hide her body because she happens to be naturally voluptuous. For her it is defiant when she decides "Actually, I'm not ashamed of having breasts, I'm going to show them off a little bit. Actually what happened to me wasn't in my control - I am going to wear a dress that's a little shorter". When she, like so many other women, have been told they need to cover up and look 

That's one of my largest problems with you in these discussions - just because you feel more comfortable, confident, empowered, defiant when you show less skin does not mean that every woman should behave that way. It doesn't give you the right to judge the expression of other women and decide what is personally empowering and defiant for them.

"Piers already said he has no problem with Emily stripping off. He just says that she shouldn't do it under the guise of feminism. Just be upfront about what you do."

And that's him missing the point, which I think I already covered a few paragraphs ago. She isn't doing this under 'the guise of feminism' she is an feminist, she found that shoot personally empowering and freeing and stated that it was not in contradiction with the feminism she ascribes to.

"Now you're really losing me. You seriously think male and female sexuality is the same? I've been over this many times, it blows my mind how I have to explain this in modern society. Male chests are not sexualised or censored in the way that women's are, so it's no big deal for them to get their chests out"

I never claimed that - what I said is that there is a difference in how men and women's bodies are policed - everybody is aware that male chests are not sexualised or censored in the same way that women's are. I agree that it's no big deal for them to get their chests out, but that's kinda the point... There was a time when a man's ankles where not as sexualised or censored as a woman's ankles. When Bieber was stripped down, in his undies, grabbing his crotch and biting his lip for a instagram selfie, I think that was more sexual than Emily and Kim standing proudly and flipping off the camera. It's not Bieber who gets policed for showing off his body and being sexy though  women get judged more harshly for being sexy or being sexual... We see that not only in this instance but in countless instances (Men who are players vs women who are sluts, the unfaithful husband/father who made a mistake vs the vile homewrecker who destroyed a marriage, the idiot who took **** pics vs the dumb slut who took nudes).

Women can be sexual beings, women are also diverse in the way they want to express their sexuality. I think certain magazines, like LOVE, often choose to depict only a very narrow expression of female sexuality that can be very problematic - but I wouldn't put the blame on Emily as an individual who feels comfortable expressing herself that way - I would put the blame on these magazines who only want to represent that.

The beauty industry consistently represents a very narrow and often unattainable standard of beauty. I don't blame Gigi Hadid for deciding to model on the cover of magazines with her blonde hair, blue eyes, long legs and thin frame - I blame the editors of these fashion magazines for their own poor representations. In the same way, I don't blame Emily Ratajkowski for posing in photo shoots like this that she feels empowered by, I blame the magazines that only depict women and in a very narrow and often sexualised way.

Just want to say that only a woman could possibly find covering herself in spaghetti suggestively to be empowering. Because that's the kind of nonsense rhetoric that is pushed on women. No man would even consider something so ridiculous unless he had a pasta fetish. And even then, he'd probably keep that secret as again, it's considered undignified for men to act out their desires in public for attention. Women, on the other hand, are encouraged to do this kinda stuff for validation. Perhaps we should ask ourselves, if men don't need to degrade themselves for validation, why should women?

But she does include the word "feminism" in her little speech. As long as she includes the word, she's alluding to her shoot embodying it. She needs to learn that it's not a word to be thrown around lightly, you will get called out for incorrect usage of it. If she didn't want anyone to think about feminism, she wouldn't have used the word. Feminism is about more than simply being a woman, it doesn't mean the same as "femininity," which she seems to be confusing it with.

I didn't say all women, I'm saying it's common about certain types of women, mostly glamour models, strippers, p*rn stars, sex industry women in general. Their idea of freedoms seem to focus almost completely on sexual stuff, which is very telling. They act as if we don't already have sexual rights or something. We don't need to wait until marriage, we have access to contraception and abortion (most of us, anyway), we can work in the sex industry, so what is there to still be demanding on the sexual front? You don't see women like this discussing the real stuff that women need, it's all focused on themselves and their own careers.

Look, I never claimed that racism didn't exist in the UK, I just denied that there is institutional stuff (there will always be the occasional exception, of course, but that doesn't mean every UK system is riddled with it). Of course there are sexist ideals about how a woman should look and dress but it's almost completely focused on the problem of over-sexualisation, not conservatism.

Please note that when I say "covered up," I don't mean from head to toe. I'm perfectly fine with cleavage, above the knee leg on show, short skirts with tights, etc. For myself, that is. I don't mind women wearing less or being more provocative (I would hardly be a fan of Gaga if I didn't), but I don't like when it gets into p*rn territory like transparent tops, thongs, nipple pasties, frontal high cuts, bikini tops that barely contain the breasts, that kinda thing. You can be sexy without letting it all hang out, no matter how good your body looks. Sure, some people think really highly of themselves which is why they show it off all the time but what I've found is that the most exhibitionistic ones tend to be the ones who have the lowest self esteem levels when no one's around and putting on a sexual front is a mask to hide from the pain. Bear in mind that I don't think women who choose to be more sexual with their attire deserve to be harassed or ridiculed, but I do think they shouldn't be immune to criticism for their choices either.

That is a very sad thing that happened to your friend and yes, I've heard of similar instances of this crime as well. And please understand that I'm in no way saying that only women who didn't cover up would have had this happen to them. Those who have done this are the ones to be shamed and they would clearly have done it to any woman and she was just unlucky. But I don't think this is really the best parallel to make. Certainly, I don't think most women are told to cover up if they have naturally large breasts unless, you know, they got to church or something and that kind of thing is inappropriate. The only one who ever made me feel like I should cover myself somewhat was my mother but only if it was something low cut. But other women, men, the media, the world, was certainly giving me a very different message. It hasn't made me ashamed of my body or anything and I don't mind accentuating breasts at all, just not to the point where I'm overexposed. Because most other women throughout my life, whether encountered or in the media, seemed to have no problem with sexualisation, I grew up thinking that was normal and expected. It wasn't until I was about 14 that I started changing and started turning to feminism, reevaluating the messages I'd been sent all my life. It made me realise how much I'd allowed myself to be brainwashed and think it was some sort of duty of women to be sexual. It would be nice if more women came to this realisation, it might cause them to have a healthier self image and for society to change for the better.

Emily's quote of "I love pasta and being greased up in olive oil more than life itself" at the end of the ad pretty much confirms that she's not a feminist. That line is pure pandering to male fantasies, it infantalisises women, it makes women sound childish and ridiculous. Stuff like that ensures that feminism can't be taken seriously. And come on, look at Emily's body. You don't get a figure like that by eating pasta. She totally looks like the type to avoid carbs for weeks in the run up to a shoot.

I think the reason why I struggle to see scantily clad men as sexual is because they're not vulnerable, they always look powerful. But a scantily clad woman will always be vulnerable, like it or not. Justin may not have been "policed" for showing off his body but he was put down in other ways. When, we saw that shot of him naked, playing a guitar in front of his grandmother, people said he'd lost the plot and was going through a breakdown. His recent full body tattoos have been met with disgust and its been suggested he has mental issues by many. It's almost like a man getting naked is the sign that he's lost his mind, that something's not right...but for a woman, it's considered normal to sexualise herself. And while, yes, double standards do prevail, lately, I've seen a lot of kickbacks against that sort of stuff, being just as critical of the men as the women, especially when it comes to sleeping around and cheating.

Of course women can be diverse in how they want to express their sexuality, and yes, I'm completely holding LOVE to blame for only asking their models to show the most narrow depiction of it. I just think that to really change society's attitudes, we have to examine everyone, not just the ones in charge. Nothing can change if the majority of us aren't on board and the companies are thinking completely different from the consumer. Companies providing a product that the audience aren't ready for isn't going to work. For you to say only the companies have to change just doesn't hold up. Media is supposed to have their finger on the pulse regarding what the public want in the present moment, so if the public start changing attitudes, they will change to fit the times. And also, the women who they ask always have perfect model bodies and there's no one who's completely flat chested with no ass. And certainly no one with any sort of facial disfigurement or deformity. They did include Winnie Harlow this year but they totally just put her in there to make a progressive statement and that girl's been dragged out to every high fashion catwalk just for the purpose of showing diversity. If she weren't famous, she wouldn't have got a foot in the door. You have to ask yourself this very important question - would all these women in these ads want to sexualise themselves or think sexual expression was empowering if they were ugly and fat? Because 9 times out of 10, it's just the perfect ones who go this route because they know that's the only time it looks good. So, to be sexually empowered, you have to look perfect? That doesn't sound like any sort of empowerment to me. Men certainly don't need to look good to be empowered - some of the ugliest ones have the most money and the prettiest wives after all.

[Delusional Aura 5,129]

On 19/12/2017 at 9:35 PM, ZiggyZiggs said:

if this was a guy, he wouldn't be complaining rn. people wouldn't even care  let them do what they want y does he care  he just wants attention

edit: lmao she never even said the photoshoot was promoting 'feminism' what is he talking about take several seats  

Thing is men don't do **** like this and call it men empowerment. There's a huge difference 

[ZiggyZiggs 30,058]

24 minutes ago, Delusional Aura said:

Thing is men don't do **** like this and call it men empowerment. There's a huge difference 

the thing is she didnt call it women empowerment 

[Delusional Aura 5,129]

1 hour ago, ZiggyZiggs said:

the thing is she didnt call it women empowerment 

Okay you're right. But, so many women do and i still stand by what i said