On Sunday, LOVE Magazine released its annual advent calendar. And on the “3rd day of Christmas,” 26-year-old model Emily Ratajkowski stands clothed in nothing but red lingerie, a pair of winter gloves, and…Italian food. All in the name of feminism.
Nothing like the objectification of women to advance an agenda geared toward female equality and empowerment. Right, feminists?
I’m sure Weinstein is thanking you copiously for it.
Ratajkowski has been a fervent “feminist” for quite some time, and lately has developed quite a voice when it comes to acknowledging and decrying allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and rape. Yet she, a thin, white, cis woman who has probably never ingested carbs in her life, is parading herself around like a sex object. She’s crying out against men objectifying and harassing women, when she literally allows (and celebrates) her own objectification into a plate at an Olive Garden. Not to mention the fact that she has dozens of pictures of herself either half- or completely naked on her Twitter profile, which was research I REALLY didn’t want to have to do, but it is what it is.
Digression aside, the irony of this is absolutely hysterical. And incredibly irritating.
The theme for the LOVE calendar this year was #StayStrong. Yet nearly 80% of the Day 1 video compilation features half-naked women with their nasty bits right up in the camera.
This video is the very definition of “sexism.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I fail to see how sexualizing women like this accomplishes anything productive, aside from empowering male masturbation (and female, if that’s how you roll). Full disclosure: this video is basically soft core porn, so don’t watch if you think Mom or Wifey might barge in on you or something.
(God, I feel self-conscious even including this in here. Also, about the thumbnail…I’m sorry?)
And we wonder why sexual assault and harassment are such a pervasive issue in our society?
It’s because women want to be seen as sexual creatures, praised for embracing their sexuality. And the second a man thinks to compliment them on it or ask them to dinner or hold open a door for them so they can a) act chivalrous for a change, and b) get a nice look at dat ass…they cry that they are being objectified.
Which is it? Do you want to be seen as a sex object, or don’t you?
You can’t have it both ways. When you objectify yourself, you won’t just have Christian Grey’s and Edward Cullen’s looking at you. You’ll also get Harvey Weinstein’s and Roy Moore’s. You CANNOT call it sexual harassment just because it’s a guy you don’t find attractive.
So decide, feminists. Before what’s left of your pathetic excuse for a movement loses its legitimacy, if it hasn’t already.