When you reach a certain age as a woman, you risk that any criticism you make of a woman younger than you will be perceived as jealousy.
This is annoying. Because disproving jealousy is impossible.
However, the good thing about getting older is that you care far less what other people think.
So, here goes.
I want to talk about the intersection between feminism and hotness.
Because there’s recently been a multi-car pile-up at that intersection that kicked off with this post from Celeste Barber about Emily Ratajowski:
Emily Ratajowksi - aka Em Rata - is the model and actress who appeared semi-naked in the Blurred Lines film clip, became internationally famous, who then railed against what she says is sexist objectification in the modelling industry and who is currently promoting a new memoir about her body called….. My Body.
Em Rata claims that during her modelling career she has twice been sexually assaulted by men while at work.
There is no argument among anyone I know that what happened to Em Rata was appalling. And also, if proven, a crime. Writing about those alleged assaults must have been incredibly hard, but she wanted to do it because they are part of her story and she considers herself an activist and advocate for women.
Em Rata has around 28 million followers on Instagram and she posts a variety of photos there.
A few with her baby son, some close-ups of her face, many nude or semi-nude photos and a number of shots with her head cropped out so you can only see particular body parts - cleavage or bum or crotch.
I think we can probably agree that those kinds of photos are at the definitive end of objectification. That’s just a statement of fact.
When you remove a person’s face from a photo to focus on a body part, the act of doing that turns the body part into an object, detached as it is from the person it belongs to.
This is not a new thing or a radical one. Women’s bodies have been objectified for centuries and used to sell things for decades.
Usually though, the people selling the things have been men.
Today, some women have decided to use their faces and bodies to sell their own things instead of pocketing a modelling fee to sell things for others. This is sold to us as a type of progress. And look, I guess it is.
Em Rata makes money both ways. She models for others and she has her own line of swimwear and lingerie called Inamorata which she models herself.
Because she has inverted the dynamic of female objectification and is objectifying herself, some hail Em Rata as a feminist warrior.
Others insist she is an enemy of feminism, betraying her sisters by perpetuating the same oppressive beauty standards that have held women back for centuries.
I think neither is entirely true.
But before we get into it, I’d like to agree on terms. Or, if not terms exactly, I’d like to lay out my beliefs in a very straightforward way. Not about Em Rata but about feminism.
First and foremost, I am not a gatekeeper of feminism. No such thing exists. I am simply a feminist who has some opinions. I don’t claim to speak for all women or all feminists and I reserve the right to change my mind at any point in the future. My mind remains open. However, here is what I believe right now.
-
At its core, feminism is the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women.
-
Feminism has nothing to do with what you choose to wear or how you choose to present yourself to the world.
-
Feminism is not a club. Nobody is the boss of it and nobody can kick you out of it.
-
The idea that feminism is somehow incompatible with hotness (whatever that means to you) is absurd. See (1)
-
Feminism is not the same thing as ‘being a woman’. See above for what feminism is. Men can be feminists. Non-binary people can be feminists. The only person who can decide if you’re a feminist or not is you because it’s about a belief. See (1)
-
Being a feminist does not mean you must agree with or support the beliefs and actions of all other women or all other feminist. When two feminists disagree, it’s not a cat-fight or a bitch-fest. It is simply two feminists disagreeing.
-
Many feminists fought - and continue to fight - for the rights of all women to do basic things like vote, drive, work, get an education, marry who we want, control our own bodies and finances and not be legally raped by our husbands.
But when a feminist does something, that does not inherently mean that action is feminist in and of itself.
I am a feminist but when I make a cup of tea, that is not a feminist action nor is that cup of tea feminist. It’s just…..tea.
And I just…..made it.
-
Related: feminists believe women should have the right to make choices about our lives. But every choice made by a woman (or feminist) is not a ‘feminist choice’. It’s often, just a choice. Getting botox is not a feminist action. Nor is using a mooncup. Nor is posing naked. They are things that can be done by feminists but they are not themselves, acts of feminism. See (1) for definition of feminism.
-
A woman who shows her arse is not the enemy of feminism. And neither is a woman who questions the arse-showing.
Which brings us to the collision between feminism and hotness that occurred very publicly when Celeste Barber made a pointed joke juxtaposing the way Em Rata objectifies herself while being a vocal critic of objectification.
Yes, I know. Em Rata is choosing to objectify herself which is different to a man objectifying her. For sure. Is it better than Em Rata profits from showing her arse rather than The Man? Indeed.
But it’s a complex line to walk.
Does this type of objectification help other women? It does not. It reinforces a beauty standard most women can’t meet.
And that’s fine. Not everything a woman does needs to be in the service of other women. That’s a trap. We never expect men to behave selflessly in order to benefit all men.
Why should women carry that burden?
If Em Rata wants to grow her personal power, her influence, her fame and her bank account by using her body in a way that conforms to patriarchal beauty standards, she is free to do so. And she does. And she has grown all those things as a result.
There are many, many feminists who don’t have book deals, whose names we don’t know and who don’t have 28 million followers.
Our culture still rewards a certain type of hotness and Em Rata embodies it quite literally.
It could easily be argued that feminists have fought for the right of women to have control over our bodies and thus use them in whatever way we choose. Because that’s true.
However, am I marching in a parade to celebrate Em Rata’s arse as a sign of feminist progress?
Not today, no.
And that’s OK too. I don’t have to agree with the choices of other women. You do you.
My friction point comes when anyone tries to claim that the act of objectifying herself is empowering for anyone other than Em Rata; that it’s somehow an act of feminism to take your clothes off when you have a body that looks like that.
Like what? Like the very narrow beauty standard 99.999999999% of women will never meet.
On Mamamia Outloud a few weeks ago, we had quite a fiery debate about Em Rata and afterwards, my friend Kate DM’d me to say she’d thrown her phone across the room in frustration while listening because she was so exasperated with me.
You can listen to that over here. Post continues below.
She called me old-school because I rolled my eyes at the idea of Em Rata’s arse being empowering.
Kate challenged me: would I feel differently about a plus sized model, portraying herself in the same way as Em Rata does?
Hell, yes.
Any woman who doesn’t conform to mainstream beauty standards and who portrays herself in a stereotypically ‘sexy’ way, is broadening the spectrum of what’s considered sexy.
And by broadening it, she makes room for more women who look like her.
The same thing applies when Tara Moss takes sexy photos in her wheelchair.
Or Paulina Porizkova posts a sexy photo at age 60 without having had any surgery or tweakments.
Or Simone Biles poses for Vogue, muscles on display.
That feels subversive because it is. We have internalised the idea that there’s one type of sexy and most of us aren’t it.
This makes it sound like I’m arbitrarily policing which women are “allowed’ to be hot and what they ‘should’ post. That’s emphatically not my point and not my position.
Post whatever you want, whenever you want to. I’m just pointing out that some expressions of hotness make more room for other women and some don’t.
If you want to show your arse or your boobs and pout and embrace that genre of sexy, please do. It doesn’t mean you’re not a feminist. It has nothing to do with feminism. But is it helpful to other women? Not particularly and not at all when you look like Em Rata. Does it need to help other women? No.
It helps Em Rata, and perhaps that's a patriarchal bargain she's comfortable making. She wouldn't be alone.
The Patriarchal Bargain is when a woman co-opts the tools of women’s oppression to help herself personally. An extreme version of that would be Aunt Lidia in the Handmaid’s Tale.
A less extreme version would be Em Rata making money by objectifying her own body.
Both Em Rata and Celeste Barber would describe themselves as feminists and I’m glad for that.
Feminism is a giant umbrella with room underneath it for anyone who believes that men and women should have equal rights.
Which should really be every human on earth.
Posting photos like the one that inspired Celeste’s post?
It’s not clever or original or daring or unexpected or surprising and it’s certainly not subversive.
It’s just a photo of a woman’s arse. The end.
Feature Image: Instagram / @emrata / Mamamia
Like a $50 gift voucher for your thoughts? For your chance, take our survey!