Emma Watson Reveals Her Breasts – and the Problem with Feminism

Emma Watson is confused. Specifically, she’s confused as to why people are confused by her. She recently bared her breasts for Vanity Fair magazine, promptly sparking a firestorm of debate and heated accusations of hypocrisy. And poor Watson just doesn’t get it. As she said, “I’m confused . . . just kind of quietly stunned.”

So why was anyone surprised by her topless shot?

It’s not just because Watson is the de facto face of the modern feminist movement, working worldwide for women’s rights; it’s not even because she’s Ivy League-educated, clearly thoughtful, and obviously wants to be taken seriously.

It’s because, for years, she’s been very vocal about female empowerment, her position as a role model, and her concern with feminists who voluntarily sexualize themselves for public consumption.

Folks have been busy waving around what Watson once said about a sexually explicit music video by Beyoncé: “I felt very conflicted . . . on the one hand [Beyoncé] is putting herself in a category of feminist, but then . . . it felt [like] such a male, voyeuristic experience of her,” Watson said at the time. (This takes Watson’s quote out of context; when read in full, it reveals that Watson actually decided Beyoncé is “empowered” because “it is her choice.”)

What’s more surprising is the silence surrounding something else Watson once said that’s far more clear and relevant: “I find the whole concept of being ‘sexy’ embarrassing and confusing. If I do a photo shoot . . . there’s the choice of clothes. I know everyone wants a picture of me in a mini-skirt. But that’s not me . . . I’d never go out in a mini-skirt. . . I don’t even think it’s that sexy. What’s sexy about saying ‘I’m here with my boobs out and a short skirt, have a look at everything I’ve got.’”

Well, then. She’s obviously changed her mind—she literally just posed with her “boobs out” so the whole world could “have a look.” So in light of all she’s said, is it any wonder people are surprised by what she’s just done? Clearly, her words and actions don’t align.

In an interview responding to the photo shoot, Watson appeared irritated, even indignant by the backlash, saying she’s “confused” and “stunned” by it all. But how can that be? For years, she’s expressed the exact same sentiments that others are now expressing regarding her. She’s discussed the struggle between feminism and sexuality, but suddenly she can’t comprehend that others might view her sexualization of herself as a problem? She’s admitted to feeling conflicted when self-proclaimed feminists engage in explicitly sexual behavior in public and for profit, but now she can’t understand why others feel conflicted about her?

First, baring one’s breasts is not sexy, but once Watson decides it is, everyone has to agree, because, you know . . . “Feminism! Choice! Freedom!”

Regardless of whether her actions are hypocritical, her attitude is pretentious. To act suddenly exasperated by the very thing she’s decried in others isn’t just arrogant, it’s precisely the kind of self-righteous cluelessness that the feminist movement is often accused of indulging.

The photo itself should be of less concern than her insistence that no one be concerned about it—she wants to shut down the very conversations she’s been initiating for years.

Of course, Watson is allowed to do whatever she wants, including changing her philosophy and taking off her top. It’s worth remembering, or realizing, that her quotes on Beyoncé and mini-skirts came when she was twenty-four and eighteen, respectively. People change. She’s human.

But you can change your opinion without losing sight of why you once believed differently. You can change your mind without acting appalled if others don’t. Watson is entitled to perpetually modify her positions on feminism and sexuality. But she shouldn’t act outraged if people notice, nor should she look down on them just because she thinks adopting a new attitude suddenly makes her enlightened.

Many people, including Watson, cannot comprehend why some women still don’t consider themselves feminists. But Watson’s own behavior and language help shed some light: too often, the actions of feminists are too easy to interpret as illogical and hypocritical. And too often, the words of feminists are too easy to interpret as pretentious and condescending.

This week, Emma Watson ended up revealing much more than her breasts. She showed just how confusing feminism really is—for her and everyone else – and she revealed precisely why some women want nothing to do with it.

  • 44
  • 44


26 responses to “Emma Watson Reveals Her Breasts – and the Problem with Feminism

  1. At its core feminism is literally anti-feminine: a movement created by and dominated by LESBIANS to turn hetero-women against their natural hetero-man partners, shame them about wanting narriage and children etcetera. Still, there is one sense in which “feminism” actually is feminine, or at least genuinely female: in its embrace of the characteristic female vice of manipulative dishonesty.

    Men can excell at manipulative dishonesty too but the characteristic male vice is aggressive violence. When men are bad this is usually the way they are bad whereas the morally perverted woman is usually a liar first. Feminism embraces this vice, creating the trap that Watson now finds herself in.

    As men well know, dealing with a bad woman is damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t. A woman can ALWAYS see herself as a victim if that is her objective. Feminism is all about embracing this objective. There is no honesty in it at all, just a pure will to power where claims of victimization and offense are sought for use as leverage.

    Anti-feminine “feminists” used to call it their “click moment.” Now they call it being “woke.” What has clicked for them is the simple realization that in virtually any situation if they LOOK for a way to see themselves as victims they can find a way to see themselves as victims. All you have to do is want to and you can find a way to interpret the nicest or most innocent comment as being nasty or hurtful or bigoted.

    Such a fun game, this witches’ brew of psychotic sociopathology concocted by lesbians and leftists.

  2. Nothing is more entertaining than watching liberals eat their own.

    Sorry Emma, were you dumb enough to think that all that hate would forever be directed at people that YOU didn’t like?

  3. Feminism stands for whatever feminists decide it does at that moment. That’s the heart of #LiberalHypocrisy. Its a herd mentality…and they ruthlessly turn on whoever it is decided has strayed from groupthink…

  4. The feminists who still think feminism is about choice are the Trotskyites. And we know what happened to the Trotskyites.

    1. What’s to be sad about? Their families can afford the 68K per year cost of Brown.

      1. Yes, but what do they get for it? Besides…family money doesn’t translate into money for the illustrious Brown grad. Then, of course, there is the problem that you are assuming they can afford it and aren’t borrowing money to pay for a goofy education.

          1. We sent our son to the best university (SUNY Binghamton) that we could afford, it’s not a stretch to assume her family did the same. The bigger stretch would be to assume they couldn’t afford it but sent her there anyway.

          2. Take Dennis Prager’s advice, if you must pay for your child’s college then choose the cheapest* college you can afford.

            * yes, he said “cheapest”

  5. I think people are overreacting, as the photo isn’t risqué in today’s norms. What I don’t understand is how she and the photographer think taking a beautiful young woman and turning her into a pale looking study in androgeny is attractive.

  6. The reality is that most people, men included are so jaded that none of this means anything anymore. There was a time when a topless woman in public was shocking and scandalous but those days are long past.
    In an age where we are actually wasting time and money debating in our courts whether naked boys should be allowed to be in the girl’s locker room a topless adult woman is not shocking it’s not even that interesting. The women who engage in such behavior (during protests for example) think they are making some kind of strong political statement and proving how brave they are. In reality all that happens when a women takes off her top is she reveals that she’s just like every other woman. Nothing there we haven’t seen before.
    Meanwhile this photo isn’t “topless”. It’s not even that interesting. The real point about this photo shoot is that it’s so lousy. The photographer frankly, sucks. I’ve never seen photographs that so completely drain the humanity from the subject the way these do. They may as well have been photographing a mannequin.

    1. The photos in question are inside the magazine, not on its cover.

      You don’t know how the nekkid booby pitchers bizniz works, do you?

  7. Great News for me! I will go in for a Job interview and whip out “Mr Wiggley” for the Boss… I know I will get the job with an asset like that.

  8. If she’s famous (and I have no idea who she is), I hope it’s because she’s invented something useful or solved an important problem. She’s not attractive in a classical sense of beauty, although women baring their bewbs will inevitably garner a following of beta males and SJW losers.

Comments are closed.