Lingering on female exhibitionism: The Emma Watson edition
Yes, I'm probably doing this for the worst of reasons.
But there still are issues worth exploring here. One is that there is a double standard. If women were arrested for exhibitionism on the same criteria that men are, every second building would have to be a jail.
A second issue is the gap between celebrities and the characters they play. If you really admire a celebrity, it's best not to read their biography. There are exceptions, Jimmy Stewart, for example, where the celebrity was a genuinely admirable person but usually not. One place the gap is particularly big is between the characters men fall in love with and the women who play them.
I've hit on this before but Joey Potter is much better person than Katie Holmes and Jennie Garth is preferable to Shannen Dougherty and Serena van der Woodsen, even though some people (misguidedly) hate her, still stands head and shoulders above Blake Lively. Of course, all these characters have a huge advantage over the women who play them. No, it's not that they are fictional characters. Fictional characters actually have to meet higher standards than the rest of us do. The big advantage they have is that they are not celebrities.
In the same line, better to be Hermione Granger than Emma Watson. (By the way, notice that all these characters have supremely perfect white-protestant-girl names? All they would need to step into an Edith Wharton novel are cosmetic changes to their speech and dress, otherwise they are Edith Wharton characters.)
In dog training, there is something we call the little-dog syndrome. Little dogs often become behavioural nightmares because people let them get away with stuff they shouldn't. Stuff that no one would tolerate in a Doberman becomes a deeply ingrained trait in a Yorkshire Terrier because its little and so darn cute. And it keeps going until one day it's not cute but rather a danger to the dog. Something similar happens with really attractive young women and particularly with really attractive young women celebrities.
I'm going to use some screen captures from other sites to make my point. I have no idea where these first appeared because they have been reproduced all over the Internet and none of the sites I found them on gave credits. I believe my use of these pictures to make a critical point constitutes fair use but if anyone who owns the rights to them disagrees, let me know.
Emma had a "wardrobe malfunction" (this happened quite a while ago, so if you are looking for the pictures of her latest slip, you have come to the wrong place). Actually, she has had a bunch of them but I want to focus on only the first because it is morally revealing even though not particularly revealing in any other sense.
"Wardrobe malfunction" is a fascinating term because it was invented by people who had intentionally engaged in flagrant exhibitionism and then tried to pretend they had not. So lets have a look here. Emma was on the carpet, going to the premiere of one of the Harry Potter films. It was a windy night and this happened.
Okay, let's spend too much time analyzing this. Although you can't see it clearly at this angle , that dress is open from above her waist all the way to the ground. So the obvious question is: In what sense is this a malfunction? The dress is only doing what it was clearly designed to do. Writers in women's magazines commonly call this sort of dressing "daring". And it is daring because the wearer cannot control exactly when or where this will happen but she does know that the risk of it happening is always there and, therefore, that one day it will blow open.
And once it happened by "accident" as it were, young Ms.Watson, as we see below, made it happen again only very much not by accident.
Okay, but I hear you asking, So what? Well, I don't think it is unique or socially significant that a 19-year-old did this. I live next to a university campus, I only need to look out my window to see this sort of thing (a lot of the girls on campus are wearing denim hot pants this year, in case you are wondering). What is interesting is the cover-up done on her behalf by the press.
Here, for example, is what Us Magazine wrote:
If you believe that was inadvertant, I have some stock in a new technology based on cold fusion to sell you. What exactly is she supposed to be adjusting here? And catch the facial expression that goes with it:
Guys, if you spot that look on the face of the woman you are out on a date with, you're headed for a happy ending. As I say, it's not that she does this that is disturbing. This is normal hormone-driven behaviour in a 19 year old. She wore a "daring" dress, the wind blew it open and she got a little too into it. What is disturbing is that no one calls her on it. Also not surprisingly, this was only the first in a number of such "malfunctions".
No man would ever be allowed to get away with this. No woman should be allowed to get away with it.
Yes, I'm probably doing this for the worst of reasons.
But there still are issues worth exploring here. One is that there is a double standard. If women were arrested for exhibitionism on the same criteria that men are, every second building would have to be a jail.
A second issue is the gap between celebrities and the characters they play. If you really admire a celebrity, it's best not to read their biography. There are exceptions, Jimmy Stewart, for example, where the celebrity was a genuinely admirable person but usually not. One place the gap is particularly big is between the characters men fall in love with and the women who play them.
I've hit on this before but Joey Potter is much better person than Katie Holmes and Jennie Garth is preferable to Shannen Dougherty and Serena van der Woodsen, even though some people (misguidedly) hate her, still stands head and shoulders above Blake Lively. Of course, all these characters have a huge advantage over the women who play them. No, it's not that they are fictional characters. Fictional characters actually have to meet higher standards than the rest of us do. The big advantage they have is that they are not celebrities.
In the same line, better to be Hermione Granger than Emma Watson. (By the way, notice that all these characters have supremely perfect white-protestant-girl names? All they would need to step into an Edith Wharton novel are cosmetic changes to their speech and dress, otherwise they are Edith Wharton characters.)
In dog training, there is something we call the little-dog syndrome. Little dogs often become behavioural nightmares because people let them get away with stuff they shouldn't. Stuff that no one would tolerate in a Doberman becomes a deeply ingrained trait in a Yorkshire Terrier because its little and so darn cute. And it keeps going until one day it's not cute but rather a danger to the dog. Something similar happens with really attractive young women and particularly with really attractive young women celebrities.
I'm going to use some screen captures from other sites to make my point. I have no idea where these first appeared because they have been reproduced all over the Internet and none of the sites I found them on gave credits. I believe my use of these pictures to make a critical point constitutes fair use but if anyone who owns the rights to them disagrees, let me know.
Emma had a "wardrobe malfunction" (this happened quite a while ago, so if you are looking for the pictures of her latest slip, you have come to the wrong place). Actually, she has had a bunch of them but I want to focus on only the first because it is morally revealing even though not particularly revealing in any other sense.
"Wardrobe malfunction" is a fascinating term because it was invented by people who had intentionally engaged in flagrant exhibitionism and then tried to pretend they had not. So lets have a look here. Emma was on the carpet, going to the premiere of one of the Harry Potter films. It was a windy night and this happened.
Okay, let's spend too much time analyzing this. Although you can't see it clearly at this angle , that dress is open from above her waist all the way to the ground. So the obvious question is: In what sense is this a malfunction? The dress is only doing what it was clearly designed to do. Writers in women's magazines commonly call this sort of dressing "daring". And it is daring because the wearer cannot control exactly when or where this will happen but she does know that the risk of it happening is always there and, therefore, that one day it will blow open.
And once it happened by "accident" as it were, young Ms.Watson, as we see below, made it happen again only very much not by accident.
Okay, but I hear you asking, So what? Well, I don't think it is unique or socially significant that a 19-year-old did this. I live next to a university campus, I only need to look out my window to see this sort of thing (a lot of the girls on campus are wearing denim hot pants this year, in case you are wondering). What is interesting is the cover-up done on her behalf by the press.
Here, for example, is what Us Magazine wrote:
The actress inadvertently flashed her underwear at Tuesday's London Harry Potter premiere while adjusting her floor-length vintage Ozzie Clark dress in the pouring rain.Adjusting eh? In case you are wondering what they are talking about, here she is "adjusting".
If you believe that was inadvertant, I have some stock in a new technology based on cold fusion to sell you. What exactly is she supposed to be adjusting here? And catch the facial expression that goes with it:
Guys, if you spot that look on the face of the woman you are out on a date with, you're headed for a happy ending. As I say, it's not that she does this that is disturbing. This is normal hormone-driven behaviour in a 19 year old. She wore a "daring" dress, the wind blew it open and she got a little too into it. What is disturbing is that no one calls her on it. Also not surprisingly, this was only the first in a number of such "malfunctions".
No man would ever be allowed to get away with this. No woman should be allowed to get away with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment