Discussion in 'Online' started by EmilyEden, Aug 22, 2013.
Her body and the dog’s are way too similar..
I mean to be fair, she isn’t that bad. Her boobs just make her look porny and her thighs could use some work.
I don’t think her body is bad at all for most people and her curves (real or not) are moderate enough to be sexy but not kardashian-ass-freaky.
It’s just the way she presents herself through her social media presence that gives her a ‘porny’ and ‘trashy’ vibe, not the boobs themselves.
Maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration on my part lol. Every time I see her I just think she looks kind of stumpy which is where that was coming from
"Emily Ratajkowski hides her slender figure underneath a navy-and-white striped blazer in New York City"
She must be really good at hiding it
Eh, her legs aren't great, but she doesn't look too bad here. I'd certainly consider her "slender" (not skinny, obviously).
She may not be our ideal, but I thought she looked pretty fantastic in I Feel Pretty.
She walked the Versace show today...
Apparently right after having her lips filled again.
I think my dislike for her is pretty obvious lol, but I really respect her for this.
Maybe if it was another celeb I wouldn’t feel this way, and I’m trying to deconstruct my feelings about it—but I can’t help but see it as another instance of EmRata “virtue signaling.”
I understand your thought process - I usually look down on her brand of #freethenipple feminism as well - but willing to put herself out so far for this cause I think takes her past virtue signalling.
Because Blurred Lines is tantamount to a lyrical feminist manifesto. Of course, Ratajkowski's moral compass seems to have recalibrated since then and she's adopted some kind of a feminist queen Midas strategy whereby all she touches turns into ideological propaganda. Her IG feed is accordingly a "feminist magazine," and to the otherwise utilitarian spaghetti-roll is appended a symbolic dimension because #empowerment, so it's not as if doubting the authenticity of her ideological commitment is at all justified, right? Especially since she also insists on maintaining her ignorance about feminism to void even a modicum of accountability for the platitudes with which she bedazzles her public persona (only accidentally, of course, harvesting liberal points in the sad rhetorical predicament of 21st century social media ).
Now, Ms. R was arrested (voluntarily, btw) for participating in an unlawful demonstration where she advanced the claim that a vote for Kavanaugh is a vote against women's rights. But despite #MeToo's best efforts, it is still not a woman's right to have her word supersede the legal code--which might actually be a sound practice, since one of Kavanaugh's accusers sports a record as a somewhat untrustworthy narrator. And as irony would have it, between Emily and Kavanaugh, the only one we decisively know to be at odds with the law is the former.
It’s not like she would get any criticism for any ‘advocacy’ so I can’t admire her for it. She’s still ‘safe’ in terms of her career. ‘Feminism’ in the West is often so petty and unprogressive: if everyone is equal here by law, what more else is there to do? If someone is being a sexist bastard then sue the piece of shit. It can’t be an ‘institutionalised’ thing if the most important institution—the the court of law—protects women (proper law enforcement is a whole other can of worms). The media and general public are so sympathetic toward feminism that to disagree publicly would be to self-imitate a witch hunt. I would like to see her use her platform for more controversial ‘feminism’ outside of the West where it would truly matter to women’s rights and where she could potentially face real criticism.
You make a lot of good points, and language is often misappropriated in modern feminism, but I’d argue that courts of law and other institutions don’t necessary protect women. This is an anecdotal example, of course, but in a previous job I held, one of my coworkers sexually harassed me for months and, although I reported him and he was given a talking-to, he was still awarded for “good performance” in the role - so clearly at least in this case, the institution didn’t take it as seriously as I feel they should have. I don’t share this to ask for sympathy and you’re more than welcome to disagree, of course; I just wanted to provide an example of why I believe modern feminism can serve a purpose when approached correctly and why I don’t hate EmRata for this particular display of feminism.
Anyway, back on topic: her feminism doesn’t make me any less curious about why she looks shorter than me when I’m 5’2”.
I don’t see any laws which are unequal in terms of gender. In fact, the courts are lenient towards women in terms of sexual assault, child custody, among other things. Crimes that are more commonly against women such as sexual assault seem to be only crime which don’t require evidence or even for timely reporting by the victim. Could you imagine accusing someone of murder and for them to be sentenced guilty without total empirical evidence?
I’m sorry he was an asshole, but you are protected by the law. If your workplace failed to protect you and it was genuine assault then you could have gone to the legal system. I don’t know any court which would be biased towards a sexual predator if they were truly sexually abusing people—especially with this notion of ‘always believing the victim’ (which is totally dangerous and actually endangers men). Women need to take responsibility for their own actions and justice. I don’t see people wining or hesistating to call the police when they’ve been physically attacked in a non-sexual context.
The disparity between mildly inappropriate flirting and sexual assault is so wide yet often blurred. One ‘mistake’ in treating someone badly doesn’t make someone a terrible person either, so perhaps he deserved to be promoted for being great at his job in his position, perhaps not, despite of his ‘mistake’. What he did was probably shit but everyone needs to stop acting like being touched on the waist or even further sexual advances are the worst crime in the be world if a simple ‘no’ or even ‘fuck off’ would suffice to end those interactions. If they then try to proceed after you’ve not consented and you have repeatedly made it clear it’s unwanted, then you have grounds to sue for sexual assault. It’s pretty simple. There’s a serious hysteria over ‘every single man being a sexual predator that is out to get you!!!’ and to perceive unwanted attention as a potential rape is to just perpetuate all this.
So no, I don’t appreciate Emily’s brand of ‘feminism’ since she should be out trying to advocate for women who aren’t protected by the law instead of enabling women in the West to continue to believe that women are just ‘so oppressed’. And why she looks so short? Beats me.
I've gotten practically laughed out of an agency casting even though I am taller than Emily's alleged "5'7" so at least kudos to her for milking the "Blurred Lines" fame. She seems much closer to 5'5. Funnily, the photo is elongated so she is def much smaller than how she is photographing.
You make it sound so easy. But when a woman chooses to report sexual harassment or assault in a workplace, best case scenario is she gets a reputation as a troublemaker or "hypersensitive," and won't get touched for promotions. I'm sure we could all find horror stories for worst case scenario. Look up "repercussions."
As for "just sue if you have a case" - what if a woman can't pay for a lawyer? Service jobs (cleaning staff, restaurant workers) are absolutely rife with harassment, and they don't make enough for a lawyer. And men who harass are smart - they usually just wait til there's no witnesses and pretend you asked for it. What if you were telling the truth and there was no good evidence?
Also, the entire #whyididntreport hashtag is basically for people who share your misguided opinion that all it takes "if it was genuine assault" would be telling the good honest men in charge of HR. Honestly, if that's the case for your job, we should all work wherever you work because