Emily Ratajkowski covers the May issue of Marie Claire’s Fresh Faces issue. Yes, people are still trying to make Emily happen. While I don’t hate her and I actually spend too much time defending her, I do think that referring to Emily as some kind of Hollywood “fresh face” is a little bit absurd. She’s been famous for years! She’s been famous ever since that terrible Robin Thicke video. Anyway, Emily chats with Marie Claire about how she’s a sexy woman who cares about politics.
On being known as both a sex symbol and feminist: “In every profile written about me, there is, ‘She’s so sexual and she’s such a sex symbol,’ paired with, ‘But, wow, she knows about politics.’ And that in itself is sexist. Why does it have to be one or the other?”
On the roles she’s offered—and those she has to fight for: “I am way more interested in working with unexpected and cool directors on interesting projects than being in this big studio movie where you’re in a bikini. I turn down a lot of movies, but I have to fight for the ones that I really want.”
On the Trump administration: “One of the things that I really hope to see come out of [Donald] Trump’s election, and what I am starting to see, is that people who were never political are starting to get motivated. My only thing is that I hope it’s not just all anti-Trump. We have a broken system, so just getting Trump out wouldn’t mean that we have fixed our country or that was the solution.”
Is it sexist to say “wow, she’s sexy and she cares about politics”? Or should I ask, is it sexist if that’s her whole brand as a celebrity-model-actress? She’s the Sexy Cool Girl Who Also Cares About Politics. That’s her thing. That’s her brand. She’s been talking about feminism and Planned Parenthood and women’s rights for as long as she’s been famous. If people are still surprised by that, they haven’t been paying attention. As for her hope that the political activism isn’t just centered on being anti-Trump…please stop policing other people’s outrage/disgust/activism. Let’s start with our baseline hatred and disgust of all things Bigly and Bigly-related… and then we can build from there.
Photos courtesy of Nicolas Moore/Marie Claire.
Who’s calling her a sex symbol? Lol
Thirst bucket? Yes
Fameho? Yes
Sex symbol? You wish Emily 😒🤣
This^^
I’m guessing most men….and whoever else finds her sexy
I think she is a sex symbol. She is gorgeous and her body is insane. Sure, she is thirsty as hell but she is definitely a sex symbol.
She has the weirdest career. She’s the new Pheobe Price I think.
Her whole brand basically is built around on her looking pretty and taking her clothes off to please the patriarchal tastes of society.
She has to see where that attitude comes from, right?
But oh well, i think its good if she spoke up if she feels that way.
I forget what it is she does. She’s a model or something right?
Is that what she is?
I thought she was actually a human dehumidifier… absorbing all possible moisture from the air around her.
Honestly, she has been in like two movies and they are giving her a cover?
I get tired of hearing people relate physical appearance with personal traits such intelligence or individual interests. The way you look does not dictate how smart you are. You can be above average in looks and be smart too. You can have pretty blonde hair and be intelligent. You can be pretty and have an interest in feminism and politics. The same principal applies to men. The size of your hands and/or feet does not mean you have a big/small penis. Just because you are handsome does mean you are boring or stupid, or for that matter smart and exciting. You can look ‘nerdy’ or geeky’ and not be MIT material. Not every single Republican is a cruel racist bigot, they just happened to have been conned by Emperor Baby Fists. Every single human being is unique and we have no right to stereotype.
True. But you can also choose how you sell yourself and the image you create.
That’s what I thought she was talking about, too – that people are surprised that she is interested in politics because she is seen as traditionally sexy (“But why does it have to be one or the other?”)
On another note, I thought she made a good point about how getting rid of Trump in and of itself won’t solve everything. It didn’t seem like she was policing; rather she was saying that the US’ problems are deeper than Trump.
That Trump is a symptom of the disease and not the disease itself is a perceptive thing to say. (Or Brexit, or le Pen, or or or). I’d be inclined to agree with her.
I agree Lola. And OhDear.
^^^good point.
“Not every single Republican is a cruel racist bigot, they just happened to have been conned by Emperor Baby Fists.” Not every drunk driver is cruel, but their actions still harm others, they’re still responsible for their decision to drink and drive, they’ll still be held accountable for the drunk driving as well as any harm that they caused by it, and when they made the decision to do that, they consciously chose irresponsibility, weakness, carelessness, and self-indulgence over the safety of others. Not every republican is a Trump Supporter. But even if not every *Trump-Supporting* republican is actively one of the thousands and thousands of Trump Supporters taking time every day to spew or upvote racist, white nationalist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, or misogynistic beliefs, or the republican politicians who make statements that promote those beliefs, or the people out there who make headlines for hate speech, hate crimes, or discrimination, they at least showed themselves willing to vote for people and policies that support all those things, endanger people, and take people’s rights away. And the Trump voters of average or higher income can’t even use poverty as an excuse. It’s on republicans who voted for Trumpp but are sorry for it now to prove that they aren’t what they’re accused of, take responsibility for what they did, not repeat their actions, and call out their own party. It’s no one’s responsibility to do everyone who voted for Trump the kindness of assuming they’re one of the few good ones who really don’t want to drag America back to the 50’s. And judging someone for voting for Trump isn’t in the same category as judging someone’s qualities based on physical appearance. Voting is a choice and a political act that has consequences for other people. And republicans had an image problem even before Trump. Again, it’s on them to change things and find out why it’s a problem.
**loud roaring whoop in agreement with this comment**
Yawn. So much yawn.
I blame the Dems for nominating Hillary actually.
You are assuming everyone who voted for Trump did so because they supported him a and not because they couldn’t stand Hillary.
@Christy
That is how primaries work. People really need to stop perpetuating the myth that Bernie could have won a general election when he could not win enough votes in the primary.
I agree. Again….incredibly weak Democratic field. And if people were run off by the Clintons then I still blame the Dems.
They need to stop trying to make Emily happen. She has been on the scene for awhile now. Her fame is not going to increase. She can’t act and her talent seems limited to modeling.
This! She’s just not a good actress or interesting in any way.
She’s not even that great of a model. I couldn’t pick her out of a crowded NYC subway. There are tons of prettier girls.
Yeah… the aforementioned “terrible Robin Thicke video” is the reason I can’t be here for anything she says. I’ll listen to her when she acknowledges how gross that song is and how the video was sooo extremely male-gaze oriented that at best it can be called objectification and at worst it’s straight-up predatory. Once she talks about that, I’ll be able to take her seriously. Maybe
The lyrics are gross (although, Pharell Williams gets to be a part of it and still be taken seriously and call himself a feminist). The video wasn’t offensive to me though, if we’re just going to look at the video without the context of the gross lyric. The video was definitely meant to be sexy for men/from a straight male’s perspective. But the idea that only women who abstain from ever being sexy from a straight male perspective should be taken seriously or listened to whenever they say anything related to feminism or politics is problematic all by itself because it positions sexiness+turning men on and personhood/equality/human rights as things women (and ONLY women) have to choose between. It rarely works the other way. Could you ever imagine Channing Tatum, Jason Momoa, or Adam Lambert being told they have to apologize for presenting themselves as sexy for women and gay men before being taken seriously when talking about feminist issues?
Who are these people? Men? Because women know. And who is surprised anymore?
Holy fresh (way overdone) lip injections, Batman!!
I HATE when a smart person tells you that they’re smart. If you’re smart, people will learn that in time, through your actions, through your behavior, through your work. Angelina Jolie didn’t have to come out and tell us who she is in print. She shows us. And, she’s freaking beautiful. And she won’t crap on a person for thinking she’s sexy. Sorry I had to bring Angelina in, but in this case I feel she is my best example.
Tatcher had one famous quote: “Powers is like being a lady…if you have to tell people you are….you aren’t.”
Same with any self-congratulation on any given topic.
Or from a person who wasnt as gruesome as Thatcher:
“Any man who must say, “I am the king” is no true king”
-Tywin Lannister
QueenB: Thanks for the perfect quote. I loved Tywin Lannister.
And Charles Dance for that matter too.
On another note-It’s my personal belief that noone, man,woman or child that managed to reach the top got there without a gruesome streak.
“If people are still surprised by that, they haven’t been paying attention.”
Why would they pay attention though? She’s not Jennifer Lawrence.
I suspect the only people who know who she is are those of us reading this blog.
I get her point, but people in general are surprised when actors (even the fully-clothed ones) share their outside interests. When they become fully realized personas in the public eye, I think the questioning stops, but I don’t think she’s famous enough for anyone to know her beyond being the “Blurred Lines” girl.
Ben Affleck motor-boated her in Gone Girl. She has that on her resume of fine film acting.
@ perplexed I suspect the only people who know who she is are those of us reading this blog
Amen to that! I refuse to read DM (see below) – Murdoch’s right wing rag that it is -so I didn’t know she was still trying to happen
The only thing anyone can remember her from other than Blurred Lines (and where is the other model in that? she was just as “memorable”) is Gone Girl and any 20- something could have played that part. That movie proved she’s pretty in pictures but not when acting. Where is her chin? is all she made me think about.
LOL. And even for that she was miscast. The whole point of his side piece in the book is that he’s escaping into the arms of a curvy, genuine midwestern girl who’s the polar opposite of his skinny, frigid, Manhattan wife.
Why do people keep trying to make her happen? God, she is boring.
I totally agree. She’s another vapid famewhore who is only known for her roles in the Blurred Lines video and playing the mistress in Gone Girl. Oh I forgot, she’s best friends with Kim Kardashian. That alone says enough about her. Bimbo be gone, you’ve had your 15 minutes already.
“Oh I forgot, she’s best friends with Kim Kardashian. That alone says enough about her. Bimbo be gone” -Thanks for proving her points about the sexism. I’m sure you call Channing Tatum a bimbo all the time.
Ermm… Channing Tatum is regularly labelled a “himbo”, “The Charming Potato” and various other variants of “never mind the intellect, scope out the abs…”
She really is DULL! I couldn’t care less about one single trite, unoriginal, predictable l”political” or “feminist” thing that she speaks of. She says NOTHING new or interesting or insightful, and when she’s not pretending that she is, she’s standing around posing for men to see her dressed in as few clothes as possible. Why not stop writing about this bland, nothing person?
Am I being sexist when I say how sexy a guy is if he doesn’t know anything about politics? Is it just sexist if they actually know something about politics?
That’s a good point. And honestly, what else are they suppose to say? She seems to be one of those ‘I’m too pretty to get good roles’ but she is not a good actress, which probably has more to do with it.
No one is seen exactly how they want to be, there is a bit of a control-freak in her i think.
There are daily pics of her in DM with her clothes off. Someone on her team must be shelling out big bucks for that. And I do mean EVERY SINGLE DAY. She’s either “frolicking on the beach” or some other nonsense. There is nothing mentioned about politics.
Was thinking the same thing.
I’m not relinquishing my Trump outrage, but I’m with her on the need for big-picture perspective. I actually fear the day that Trump is impeached, the outrage goes with him, and we go back to apathy toward a broken system run by oppressive monsters who know how to trample our rights without trolling us all.
And another thing-it’s just so fashionable right now for everyone to be political-gets them clicks and publicity. So expect everyone to take advantage-famewhores are famewhores and they will find a way. Maybe she legit cares,maybe not. Who can tell these days. Actors,models, writers…everyone is suddenly political.I guess take someone at their word,because how can we know how sincere anyone really is.
She’s spoken out about politics and being politically aware for a lot longer than Trump has been in office. And again, if that’s the yardstick by which we’re going to judge here, there are a dozen other celebrities in recent times who would largely also be disqualified for riding the popular sentiment right now.
Agreed, and she was speaking out about controversial issues (Planned Parenthood, for example) before it was popular to do so and as a celebrity who isn’t as established.
Well, that went well. Emily, I hear you and despite your less than stellar acting skills, I agree with your views and I hope others are listening. Wear as many bikinis as you like and chase fame to your heart’s content but just be aware that these actions will have people lining up to revoke your feminism card. Carry on.
+1. “Wear as many bikinis as you like and chase fame to your heart’s content but just be aware that these actions will have people lining up to revoke your feminism card.” And the funny thing is that they won’t even realize how revoking a woman’s feminism card over a lack of feminine modesty is and of itself anti-feminist, and usually shows that they either don’t know what it means or have some fucked up Tyrese-like views about equality.
Or you know, she could just demonstrate her own intelligence aside from informing us. She could do it topless for all I care.
Otaku = everything.
It seems so simple to me. Feminism is equality and Emily is entitled to be a tacky actress who plays to the male gaze while being political but her thoughts are irrelevant because, yeah. bikini pap strolls? That is depressing af. The Harty Potter chick’s feminism is adored because she’s all Chanel-y and toes the decorum line but the body-baring, booty-shaking sex symbols get dragged. Um, okay.
Also it seems some here are missing her point. It is offensive to all women when the claim is that sexiness/feminine appeal and intelligent political discourse are mutually exclusive. Some of these comments are proving her point. The tone seems to be “You suck as an actress so go sit in the corner, look pretty and shut up.” Well, Meryl Streep is one hell of an actress and I’d give anything if she’d stfu.
That’s literally all this site does though. I used to visit here way more often but it’s just gotten so exhausting reading the blogs and then the comments. If a women doesn’t say anything at all she gets crucified. If she does and she’s not someone this site likes, she’s told to shut up and go be pretty somewhere or go be so and so’s wife. I used to love coming here to talk about gossip and what not but at some point this site took a complete 180 and now it’s just negative for the sake of being negative. I still enjoy coming here though because of how Kaiser covers politics and is open about it all plus I do love some posters and how they word out what they have to say. So I still read some of the posts especially the political ones. I just don’t comment as much even though today all I’ve done is comment but it’s my day off so I said why not lol
Sam
I agree. I come for Trump therapy – CB lets me know that my country hasn’t lost its collective mind. But the rest…sad face.
“just be aware that these actions will have people lining up to revoke your feminism card”
I couldn’t agree more.
Me personally, I’m interested in and concern myself with structural inequality. So I haven’t the least interest in individualist feminism – white feminism, identity feminism, liberal feminism, whatever you want to call it. I personally call it capitalist feminism because for me it’s all about commodification of self and general navel gazing. I genuinely couldn’t give a toss one way or the other whether or not a woman frees her nip or whether or not the male gaze likes her and she wants it to.
But that’s just me. And if any woman wants to access her feminism through this prism, who am I to argue? I am not the gatekeeper to feminism. There is no gatekeeper to feminism. There is no central feminist authority to which women have to audition for admittance. If there were it would be the antithesis of feminist.
I think you’re on to something with “capitalist feminism” but since capitalism can’t exist w/o racism, specifically anti-blackness, “white feminism” suffices just as well too, imo. 😛
But yeah. I’m actually very surprised by the response in the comments on this post tbh. I would have hoped that people at least read a little into what she was actually saying, rather than going off of whatever preconceived notions that they might have of her? And I can’t believe there are still women who insist that you’re not allowed to talk about feminism, or politics, or any of that stuff if you don’t have any achievements to your name that *they* judge as valid. If that’s not policing someone else’s right to an opinion, I really don’t know what is.
And Sixer proves, once again, why she’s the queen of everything!!
It’s a very interesting discussion though. To me it’s not about judging her brand of feminism. If she wants to stand up for hot girls who aren’t taken seriously, go do your thing. It’s the same question that arises with Kim Kardashian. Is she really a feminist just because she says whatever she says? Or can I actually judge her on her actions or her brand? Is it hypocritical to say you stand up for women but your entire brand plays to what men and patriarchy have deemed desirable?
She is successful because her brand represents everything attractive to the male gaze. I don’t see any other achievement yet. That doesn’t mean she’s not a feminist but whenever she gives an interview I ask myself “Do you know that the image you are representing is in itself a problem?”
That’s why I call it capitalist feminism – it’s commodifying self and monetising patriarchy for personal profit. Is fine. Have at it. In a slightly more controversial view for this site, I feel pretty much the same about Beyonce – yep, package up all the tropes of structural inequality and use them to promote your brand. Is fine. Have at it. Just don’t expect much in the way of interest from me cos I’m interested in WHAT you packaged, not that YOU packaged it and whether or not you packaged it successfully.
I just don’t come at anything from an individualist standpoint. And that’s me. And of course, you’re going to find more of it in the US than many other places because the US is probably the most individualist and capitalist nation on Earth and is proud of that aspect of itself.
I think there is a great discussion to be had on to what extent packaging the male gaze for personal empowerment is feminist and to what extent it is merely patriarchy rebranded. It’s just not in the least bit interesting to me personally.
I think the main point is that these discussions and points of view coexist within various strands of feminism and that no woman has the right to kick any other woman out of feminism. Another controversial view for the received wisdom on this site – this is also why you’ll never catch me using the terms TERF or SWERF. Am I myself trans exclusionary? No, absolutely not. Will I ever be using terms weaponised as the new “witch” to try to silence other women and kick them out of feminism? Also no, absolutely not.
@Sixer: I have to disagree about the terms TERF and SWERF. Like the term White Feminism, using these terms aren’t like saying someone isn’t a feminist. It means that they’re feminists who have some prejudices, policies, behaviors, or attitudes that contribute to the oppression of certain groups of women.
@LittleMissNauhty: ” Is it hypocritical to say you stand up for women but your entire brand plays to what men and patriarchy have deemed desirable?” No, because the whole point is to get away from women being told to avoid male desirability in order to get equality or safety. Her presenting a sexual/immodest image of herself isn’t the problem because the problem isn’t how individual women present or dress themselves, it’s how people are taught to view and treat women based on outdated views on gender and sexual morality. Modesty or women living in fear of what will happen if men find them desirable has never worked as a magical inequality-ending or violence-ending charm. And sex and desirability aren’t bad things.
@Otaku Fairy and Sixer: I get what you’re saying. You both want to get away from the individual approach. However, she is not just a random woman without public profile. She is given a voice and presumably wants people to listen. So imagine young girls (or boys) looking at her and listening to her. What exctly is the message? You can ignore it and say oh she is just one person but as long as she has over 12 million Instagram followers and is put on magazine covers, this is not something to be ignored. We’re grown women and can view her against the background of our own opinion and experiences. I don’t have a daughter but man, I wouldn’t know how to explain these things to her. Sex and desirablity are not bad things at all. But I would want my kids to strive for more. Everyone can get naked. Heck, if I looked like that, I’d throw on a bikini all the time. But it’s not an achievement.
I do think it’s hypocritical to try and fight a system you’re also embracing wholeheartedly.
Sixer, I’m not saying you need to pay attention to her but she’s not the only one with this kind of brand and women in the public eye do have an effect on their “fans” or whatever you want to call them.
I honestly have to google her every time she’s in a post…I don’t actually remember who she is…
I honestly don’t know anything about her. I wouldn’t know who she was even if she walked by or sat on my lap.
Ehh I agree with her to some regard. I don’t think she’s a sex symbol but I do some people dismiss her opinion just because she’s known for being a pretty face. I think that’s ridiculous. I think we all have the opportunity to be more than who we are on the outside.
Yes. It’s a regular thing on Emily Ratajkowski posts for her immodesty to be used as a tool to dismiss anything she has to say and label her as a fake feminist, a bimbo, or something else derogatory and misogynistic while Channing gets to strip, shake, use sex appeal and physical appearance for attention as his career, and talk about gender equality and rape culture all while being praised by the same women as a lovable feminist hero. The sexual double standard pops up in some weird ways. And even with women other than Emily Ratajkowski- even with women who are talented- thinks like talent, intelligence, sexual orientation, and feminism are all treated like things women have to be more modest in order to have applied to them or to be believed about.
I totally agree with everything you say Otaku Fairy but I think she annoys people because she very much plays into, and benefits from, patriarchal beauty standards and I think it annoys people, women in particular, to feel they are being lectured to by someone who at the same time benefits so much from their looks in a society where these are still valued in women above all else.
This is just the sense I get, I could be wrong.
@Bootsie That’s true, but whose fault is that? Is it Emily Ratajkowski’s fault, particularly, that society still judges women based on patriarchal beauty standards? Or is it the fault of the various producers (many of whom are male), who solicit her presence particularly because she is a pretty face and conforms to those beauty standards?
I don’t see how, or even why, something that’s really far beyond her control is something that should be used to dismiss her opinion. If that were the case, then there’s really no celebrity in Hollywood, or even very many women, who are allowed or entitled to speak out about women’s issues at all.
is channig tatum respected though? i always thought that he was viewed as a Himbo. anyway i understand that being feminist means we recognize and allow all women’s right to express whatever aspect of themselves they want. i do think that emily gets the side-eye because she doesn’t seem to emphasize other qualities than her sex appeal/body but to be honest i don’t follow her and don’t know enough of what she’s said and done that highlight other aspects of herself. also it’s true that when a woman is playing into the patriarchal/male gaze, it doesn’t feel quite as revolutionary and as if a knowing choice is being made as opposed to those women who had to reject traditional sexist roles.
Yeh but You wouldn’t expect political insights from Channing T right? I mean he has a right to them but you know…..he’s mostly at the gym. It’s a forgone conclusion (perhaps sadly), that he has little time to read political blogs outside of ingesting huge amounts of weight gain supplements and working out non-stop. What other male heart throb could you say is (young) and hot and political? (You can’t include Clooney cuz…..the older and saggy-er he got corresponds DIRECTLY to his political aspirations). So who on the men’s celeb side can you point to? I don’t think this is a double standard at all. There’s hot men and then there’s smart men. If anything AJ is the example. A Woman.
Seriously, contrast the responses to any Emma Watson post (“She’s so smart and thoughtful and such a great role model. How dare people state legitimate criticisms of her, she’s *learning* ok?!”) versus any Emily Ratajkowski post (“That thirsty stupid trollop! Just shut up and look pretty.”).
Again, why the witch hunt for the perfect set of circumstances under which someone like Emily can claim feminism? Stop it. If she wants to twirl her hair, wear a gold bikini and talk about how hard it is to find the right bra who gives a flying? She doesn’t have to run it through committee. She doesn’t have to please you. She doesn’t have to champion anything but gender equality to be a feminist.maybe she likes the male gaze. Maybe she freakin’ loves it. It’s her life and she has a seat at the table.
It definitely seems like Channing Tatum is respected- at least on sites where most of the commenters are liberals/feminists. Even if you take a look at the comment sections here on a Channing Tatum post the comments are mostly positive, and when he has spoken out on feminism, misogyny, and rape culture, he’s gotten praised for his thinking and his message while Emily R. gets dismissed as a fake feminist/convenient feminist (with no trace of irony from the body-policing sex-negative feminists saying it), a narcissist, and a bimbo. He gets praised for his feminism, his attractiveness, and what a cool, sexy couple he and Jenna are (even though he regularly discusses sexual subjects- something that people have a problem with when it’s a woman celebrity). The most critical thing he’s been accused of that I’ve seen is pandering to women too much, but other than that things stay mostly positive. It’s also silly how women can’t say one negative thing about the misogynist criticism (not the valid criticism) of Kim Kardashian or react to her in any way other than the socially acceptable ‘distance yourself from the loose wimmenz!’ without that being seen as some kind of mark against her intelligence or her feminism.
If you have to jump up and down and convince people, it’s because your choices and actions don’t reflect your stated intelligence. I’m not suggesting that it’s her choice to show off her body that means she can’t also be intelligent, but rather the only evidence I ever see is her own assertions. For a great example, look at Richard Sherman, who while also being loud as hell on the football field, consistently writes and speaks out intelligently (not to mention his huge impact in community service). If you have to tell everyone it’s because you’re not showing them.
Of course I don’t think you should jump up and down to tell us but I definitely think there’s a stereotype out there that if you look good or if you act a certain way (i.e. posing topless, acting sexy etc) that means you can’t talk about intelligent topics too. I don’t agree with her 100% on what she says has to say but I definitely think there’s that stereotype out there where when someone who is perceived as good looking is told to be quiet because what do they know.
However, I do agree that you shouldn’t have to tell us that you’re smart/intelligent. It should show.
Does being sexy mean that we the readers say that she can’t talk about serious topics? I’m genuinely not sure, because Emily R seems to spend most of her time talking about how she can be topless and be a feminist. Which, she can be as topless as she wants, but the onus is on her to talk about more than just her boobs.
And she gets a huge thumbs down from me for those stupid selfies with Kim K. Not exactly hanging out with the brain trust there.
In her case she doesn’t have any solid accomplishments, I think, either in the way of career (in acting or modelling — is she considered top of her field in modelling?) or education or advocacy work. I think that’s probably why people are surprised when she expresses her interest in politics. The only thing people have to go on when it comes to her are visual images (and it’s not clear to me whether those are considered accomplishments or because your publicist calls up a magazine to beg you to be on the cover).
Giselle Bundchen is a model, and has posed naked, but given that she’s been smart enough/business savvy enough to become the highest paying model of all time, I wouldn’t necessarily be surprised if she expressed a political opinion. I figured she’d have to have some kind of political opinion to make sure her money stays where she wants it to!
Gisele is the one who said that it should be LAW for mothers to breastfeed for the first six months. Which sounds disturbingly like something Mike Pence would say.
I didn’t say her political opinions would be smart. I’m just saying I’m not surprised if she ventured to express one.
In general, now that I think about it carefully, I don’t think I’m really surprised when celebrities talk about politics. Lately, that’s all anybody seems to be doing — it’s probably a sign of the times.
I wonder if Emily is imagining people expressing surprise that she has an interest in politics. Madonna has always been super-sexual and nobody seems surprised when she says something political. Everyone from Ben Affleck to Katy Perry to Kim Kardashian is expressing a political opinion of some sort now, and we’ve seen all of them in various states of undress, and nobody seems shocked when they venture some kind of interest in politics. And for some reason everyone is mad at Taylor Swift for NOT expressing a political opinion. Okay, she’s never truly naked, but it’s not like she’s a nun either.
Perplexed I actually find it interesting how so many celebs have spoken up about politics but what I find most interesting is when some celebs are told to be quiet about it. But then in contrast like you’ve said you have certain people who keep bringing up Taylor Swift’s silence. Personally I think any conversation is good. You’ll either show yourself, become more aware or show that you’ve been keeping up with everything that’s been going on. I don’t believe in the “stay out of politics because you’re just another celeb” mantra.
I hate it when celebrities talk about politics. Humanitarian causes – great. But politics? Nope.
Holy Penelope Cruz in her “Blow” days!
The placement of the “M” in “FEMALE” on that cover is gross.
A course I took talked about that very thing in advertising. They said it’s not accidental.
“It’s sexist to call me a sex symbol who cares about politics.” What does that even mean?
You show your tits and ass on a regular basis (which is fine). Clearly, you want to be a sex symbol. You make political statements on a regular basis (which is fine). Clearly, you care about politics.
How is combining the two (by your own accord) equivalent to sexism?
[*Good grief.*]
Good point!
I don’t think that’s what she’s referring to as sexist. She’s referring specifically to the surprise that she encounters when people talk about someone who’s a sex symbol being politically aware, as if someone being those two things in conjunction is a revelation when it obviously isn’t. The fact that people in society still want to draw lines between people who are smart (or in her case, aware), and people who look good as if they’re always mutually exclusive, and acting as if that not being an issue is some kind of hot-take (so much so that every profile written on her starts with those words), is sexist. There are other angles you can approach here, and this particular one is over-used and tiring. I can’t say I fault her for this particularly though.
She’s not policing anyone’s outrage though? She’s right that there are people who didn’t care about a lot of issues, who are suddenly (and rightfully imo) interested in politics, who would go back to their state of not-caring if and when Trump is out of office again. It was especially noticeable when suddenly there were a ton of people who were outraged about Trump bombing Syria and Afghanistan, who previous either supported Obama’s military intervention policies, or didn’t care or weren’t aware. Or they were okay with Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy, but were outraged when it was Trump. And it’s likely that they wouldn’t care, or make themselves aware, after Trump is out of office.
I don’t think it’s a bad way to approach activism, because I’m sure that a lot of peoples’ entry into that sort of thing began with issues that specifically began to affect them. But there is a ton of outrage surrounding Trump that I do think is performative for the most part. I’m not complaining, since I think we need people to be outraged if we’re going to effect change, but I do think people should take the time to be introspective about their motivations if we’re going to have any sort of *lasting* change. And that’s as important as any short term goal is right now.
She makes me tired. Why is she still here? Why is she getting prominent covers and celebitchy coverage? What movie is she promoting? Is she trying to be a serious actress or just Kardashian/Hilton type famous? I don’t understand. Don’t most celebrities do covers such as this for roles/promoting things?
I don’t hate her nor do I question her feminism but I just don’t care about her. She’s a very bad actress so there is no reason to care about her. I don’t get why she’s getting all these magazine covers when she has no discernible talent besides looking pretty? And she’s in the acting business now so I have a right to criticize her getting this amount of attention when she doesn’t know how to act at all.
Now don’t get me wrong that’s not a dismissal of her political opinions and I agree that the political system as a whole is the main problem but I could have gotten that same message from somebody who is actually interesting. Listen I don’t know the girl so it has to be something to pull me in besides her looks and I don’t see anything there.
Precisely.
She is a bad actress. Therefore she sells herself as a sex symbol. Then she denies her sex symbol sales strategy and complains about people not taking her seriously. Chapeau for the confidence to pull off that u-turn.
But it does get ridiculous after a while. I doubt people will buy into that long-term.
Your pics sell sex.
You are selling yourself as sexy vixen. You have pictures taken voluntarily of yourself which are useful only for one kind of branding: branding you as a sex symbol.
It would be unfair to REDUCE you to a sex symbol. You are more than a sex symbol. And it is a matter of free speech to point out that you are selling yourself as a sex symbol. It is not the one or the other. It is both.
In the past (1st wave of) feminism did originally mean to attempt to allow women to have a career outside kitchen-bedroom-children. That means women were empowered to earn a living without having to undress, without having to have sex or without having to have children. Women wanted the option to not have to make a living out of their female organs.
That has changed in so far as nowadays feminists can sell sex or sex pics and still consider themselves to be emancipated feminists. Read this carfully and completely: Nevertheless it needs to be pointed out that sex-selling feminists aren’t really emancipated nor liberated IF selling sex is their only option. Feminism is about having options. She who has no options isn’t liberated nor emancipated.
When I look at your career and at your pics and at your statements about politics I sometimes wonder if you really have options besides selling sexy pics. I am honestly not sure about it.
“sex-selling feminists aren’t really emancipated nor liberated IF selling sex is their only option. Feminism is about having options. She who has no options isn’t liberated nor emancipated.” That’s true, but it’s also equally important to consider not just an individual woman’s options, but her beliefs and preferences when it comes to sexuality and her body. There’s a difference between something being one of someone’s most lucrative and preferred options, and something being the only option someone has to get their basic needs met, even though it’s something they really don’t want to do. Unless you know something about Emily that not everybody knows, I don’t think that applies to her any more than it applies to Channing Tatum or any of these other rich/famous privileged models and celebrities who aren’t being forced or blackmailed into taking their clothes off.
Sorry but Emily takes regular photos of herself for Instagram in bikinis, skimpy outfits, photos of her breasts, her butt, in various sexy poses. There are pictures of her parting her own buttocks and pushing her breasts forward. Just go and look at her Instagram page. Emily, if you want people to think you’re interested in politics or intelligent and worth listening to you need to present yourself differently. You teach people how they should treat you. All we get are shots of your body and you’re wondering why people think you’re a sex symbol. Get a clue.
Close your mouth honey, you are letting the flies in.
Serious question: has Emily ever offered any political opinions? She says that she has them, but all I seem to hear her say is that she can be a feminist and pose in sexy pictures (which I totally agree with, basically). I understand that she supports PP, but is that all she said? It is kind of annoying to read her talk about false/phony/bandwagon political outrage when she hasn’t offered anything of substance.
And Angelina Jolie was/is a sex symbol who could also discussed political opinions.