The female-celebrity-getting-out-of-a-car-pantyless photo is nothing new. Britney has done it. Paris has done it. In the world of celebrity, you're nobody until somebody has taken a photo of your labia.
For the most part, Hathaway's slip might have gone uncommented on. And then Matt Lauer commented on it. Like, on tv. He was basically all, "So, saw your vag, tell us about your new movie." People were, understandably, outraged. Anne Hathaway is an Oscar nominated actress. Her work is lauded and respected by millions. She seems super nice and her smile is like sunshine (that's not sarcasm). She has way more teeth than a person should reasonably have, but they're so straight and blindingly white that it's like looking into a virgin's soul (some of that was sarcasm). She's the closest thing we have to an official "America's Sweetheart." Some MAN can't acknowledge that the whole country has seen her bare crotch. TO THE INTERNET OUTRAGE MACHINE!
Here's the thing that I can't quite get my head around. Accidental nudity photos have been an issue for years. There's a scene in Spice World where Richard E. Grant blocks a paparazzo's camera and admonishes him for trying to get an upskirt of the Spice Girls. Spice World.
I fear many of my readers won't have any concept of who these women are, due to my old age.
The point is, this has been happening for a while. And yet, the collective anger only reared its head on a large scale when it happened to Anne Hathaway.
Look, I'm sure many people were as disgusted at the publication of LiLo's beaver pics as they are at Anne Hathaway's. That's not the point. The point is that, collectively, we decide who is deserving of our ardent defense and who is not based on the same misogynistic bullshit that creates the marketplace for those pictures in the first place.
We live in a culture where we feel we have the right to see an actor, musician, or model's naked body on display for our own gratification. Your first urge there might have been to correct me: "No, we live in a culture where we feel entitled to see women's bodies." That's just not true. If that were true, True Blood wouldn't have half the ratings it's getting.
You are not watching this show for his incredible acting. Come on.
So, why are we so up in arms about the exploitation of Anne Hathaway, when we tolerate and even pay to see other celebrities being exploited?
Because Hathaway is a "good girl," and as such she deserves our moral outrage. She's never been involved in any scandals (at least, not any of her own making). She doesn't openly use drugs and doesn't get kicked out of nightclubs for being too drunk. But most importantly, she doesn't trade sex as a commodity. Any time she's done nudity for a film, it's been "artistic" nudity that's necessary for the role. When you compare her to Britney or Paris, she's practically a nun.
Some have argued that since Britney and Paris have made their careers out of flashing flesh, they deserve what they get. That's just stupid. If you break into a grocery store after closing time, you aren't going to get very far with the defense, "Well, it was open this morning, I figured I could just go in at any time." It's like these people are saying, "My mom gave me twenty bucks for my birthday, so I emptied out her bank account. What? There's nothing wrong with that, she was asking for it." A woman dressing and behaving in a sexually provocative manner doesn't mean we all have this all-access pass to see parts of her body that aren't meant to be displayed.
Others have said that since Britney and Paris and Lindsey have made it a routine to go out and get plastered and fall all over the place with their skirts up, that's the key difference. Hathaway doesn't act like that, so we don't feel she deserves the ridicule. This is also a completely fucked up and illogical way of thinking, and it's akin to arguing that women who get drunk at parties should expect to be raped and don't deserve sympathy. Intoxication is viewed as a moral failing, and it is extra, extra immoral when women are the ones who are intoxicated. But even though society now grudgingly admits that raping drunk girls is wrong, it still seems pretty comfortable saying that if you get drunk and flash your panties (or lack thereof), it's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone will take a picture. Oh, and it's all your fault.
What's worse is, the women whose snatches are being mercilessly hunted are women that are culturally understood to be, well. Not very intelligent. Whether Paris is truly a dumb blonde, I have no idea, but that's the image the media projects: "Here's Paris Hilton. She's a stupid whore." Britney Spears is/was? under a court ordered conservatorship because mentally she was not sound enough to care for herself as an adult. Doesn't it seem like these women, if they're really, truly of a lower intelligence or functional capability, are more vulnerable than Hathaway? And therefore more deserving of our indignation? Aren't they victims of the very culture that encouraged them to market their sexuality in the first place?
Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't be angry about people with unscrupulous morals benefitting from poor Anne's wardrobe malfunction, because we absolutely should. I'm just saying, maybe we should examine why we care, as a culture, more when it's a "good girl" and not a "slut" or "trainwreck" being exploited.
Speaking of wardrobe malfunction... why did everyone blame her? It was Timberlake who exposed her titty, FFS.
Maybe you're not guilty of any of these things, and you're thinking, "But Jen, I always defended Britney!" Good, I'm glad you did. I didn't, because I hadn't wised up at that point. If this is you, then good, I'm happy for you. But the fact is, a lot of people don't defend the Britneys and Parisii of the world and choose instead to defend a woman who is clearly more than capable of defending herself. And that's fucking sick.
***stands and applauds***
ReplyDeleteYes, a thousand times yes.
Couldn't agree more, very well written and insightful. Thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteThis is awesome and very insightful. Could I post this on tumblr and link back to you? People need to read this.
ReplyDeleteSure, share it however you want!
DeleteActually, I haven't heard about it. And I'll react to it the same way I did Brittney, or Paris, or any of the others: meh.
ReplyDeleteWho cares? Obviously, people do care, but, seriously, it's just a vuvla. I'm reasonably sure I've seen it already in that one movie...maybe it was just boobs, but that movie seemed a little more hardcore at the time. The movie wasn't very good. But the point is, she inevitably has a vulva, being female, and it sucks for any of them that there are photographers hoping and hoping and hoping that their photos will pick up a vag. Her legs are a mile long; I suspect it's hard to get out of a car in a shortish skirt without a tiny bit of exposure.
The fact that it is such a big deal (especially since she was what getting out of a car to what I assume was just to go shopping or something?) with her or any of the others really frustrates me.
I'm actually super sick with how intensely celebrities in general are harassed, hounded, and followed. They don't owe any one anything but the films, or art, or game, or whatever. I tabloids, and I hate celeb gossip. And I also hate that a millisecond vag flash is news. It really speaks negatively of our culture that it is an issue at all or shocking at all.
I hate tabloids*
DeleteI wish there were legal limits to what paps can do. Aiming up skirts should never be allowed, and keeping a reasonable distance away would be good. So would banning the use of telescopic lenses to get shots of someone on private property (as happened to Kate Middleton recently). We don't need another Princess Diana.
DeleteI wonder what would happen if it was a guy getting out of a car wearing loose shorts and no underwear so that someone at the right viewpoint could get a view of genitalia.
For the most part, I'm blissfully unaware of what happens in Hollywood and only ever pay attention to what celebs themselves put out. Too much speculation, and really, I don't care.
This was a topic of conversation among some friends of mine recently, and the general consensus was that no one gets up in arms when it's someone like Paris Hilton who basically sells sex as her way of getting attention and has left nothing to the imagination by her own choice. Her entire reputation is built on sex. Women like Anne Hathaway or Emma Watson (same thing happened to her) don't sell sex. They get more attention over these photos because they don't intentionally publicly bare anything at any time, and because they guard themselves closer, it's seen as a violation against them to photograph what they wouldn't put out there. With Paris, there's reason to suspect she is after attention, and so no one gives it to her.
ReplyDeleteWe also need to take a look at the people who make these pics a demand. I think it's far worse for the photographers who aim for crotch shots. Even if someone is possibly hoping for one for attention, these photographers shouldn't be taking them. And let us not forget the people who lap this stuff up and pay for the magazines and flock to websites to view it (go to a website to see these pics, and the website owner's making money by ad impressions).
All of this together adds up to sending the message to girls and women today that their bodies are their greatest assets and are what's worth money. Flashing celebs (whether on purpose or on accident, and at any given time, we don't know if the person is doing it for attention or didn't mean to), photographers, and those demanding. Remove one of the three and it'll break the chain. Paps having some sense of morals by not flashing up skirts would be the easiest. I wish there was a law against flashing up someone's skirt without their consent. If getting out a car is okay, then would it not be okay to slyly aim up the skirt of a woman standing? The laws need to apply to all skirts. And people need to stop getting excited over these pics and stop looking.
I agree with what you said, but at the same time, this is the price of fame. These people wanted to be famous knowing full well that this is what happens if you become famous, the paparazzi, stalkers, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf you know you're getting photographed everywhere you go, maybe you should wear panties. Maybe you shouldn't even wear a skirt short enough to be seen up. I've seen some of these "upskirt" photos, and they're sometimes just a picture of the person getting out of the car. No angling of the camera, no camera man crouching down to get that shot.
I simply don't defend anyone that famous who gets such photos taken of them.
That is rape culture. Right there. You're promoting it. I don't care how famous they are. NO ONE deserves to have nonconsensual photos taken of their private bits. Wanting to be an actor/singer/some other kind of famous artist DOES NOT mean you should expect to be violated and not complain about it.
DeleteThe ridiculous thing is that many women attend red carpets pantyless to avoid that dreaded, much-maligned pantyline that shows through the tight/haute-couture dresses we all expect them to wear -- which *will* get them eviscerated by tabloids and bloggers everywhere because omg tacky or something.
ReplyDeleteSo it ends up being a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Thank you for pointing out the error of my previous way of thinking. I'd never really thought about the moral judgements we (well, I) display. So, really, thank you for pointing out the error of my previous lack of thinking.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand if Anne wants to go out not wearing pants, ok that's her business HOWEVER not wearing pants in a dress with a slit up it, at a premier for a film (not her first one) where she knows that she's going to get papped the moment she gets out of a car? Something about that doesn't quite sit well with me. Should the dude have sold them? No, but this sin't Anne's first rodeo. Am I being too judgey?
ReplyDeleteYes.
DeletePerhaps these celebs should hire a "modesty matron" to hold a veil for them as they exit their nakedness out of the vehicle. There: they get to avoid both VPL and Papparazzi Pudenda. Plus, another minion gets a paycheck. Win, win, win.
DeleteIt seems like kind of common sense to wear underpants, but what do I know- I don't wear fancy dresses. Either way, I agree that it shouldn't matter who it is.
DeleteYou say everything I feel about feminism so well.
ReplyDeleteI think another aspect of it is that this is the tipping point in blatant media sexism moreso than it is Anne's V (at least in my circles of the internet). For the past few months, the female stars of blockbuster movies have been pointing this out, and Anne's response about being in a culture that sees sexuality as a commodity really highlighted to everyone who doesn't watch every interview with Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone. Or even Anne Hathaway, who was part of that annoying sexism pre-Dark Knight Rises.
The same guy asked Scarlett Johanhsson what kind of underwear she wore under her Black Widow body suit, and asked Anne how she dieted for the role of Catwoman. They both had really amazing responses to him, easily found on the internet but basically they were like "Why? Do you need to fit into a body suit any time soon?"
ScarJo pointed out that RDJ got really interesting questions about his role as Tony, and that she only got diet questions.
Jennifer Lawrence was asked how much she weighed, and she said the movie is about more than her weight, and wouldn't you feel uncomfortable if she asked you that? (And then people say she's fat, which is a LIE she is BEAUTIFUL AND PERFECT). And she's constantly asked about her training-- not that she can shoot a bow, but just that she's working out.
Emma Stone said Andrew Garfield always gets more interesting questions on press junkets for the simple fact he's a boy. (Andrew was like BUT THAT'S SEXISM! and it was cute).
So I think Anne's response to Lauer was just amazing, and capped off the year of shitty men asking shitty questions. Why did he even have to mention that? It has nothing to do with LesMis and Anne was obviously embarrassed by it.
I can find the links to these interviews if you want them.
^^^
DeleteI agree, I'm not really a fan of Hathaway's, but I loved her responses in both situations, as well as the other interviews you mentioned. I also wonder if maybe some of the outrage is not just at the picture, which is bad enough; but Lauer's sleazy questions. The Today Show isn't exactly serious journalism, but nor is it tabloid journalism like TMZ or E!, so maybe people were annoyed by that kind of inappropriate questioning from the show? Maybe Hilton and Spears had "serious" journalists asking them about their upskirt incidents, but I don't recall so; and since the Today Show is one of the widest watched news shows it reaches a big audience to cause a reaction to it.
DeleteSince Britney and Paris were publicly hanging out together at the time of their pics, it was widely thought that they planned the incidents for publicity. That might be one cause of the lack of outrage in their cases.
ReplyDeleteDude, if Spice Girls make you old, I'm going to have to accept that I've passed my prime. Spice Girls were my first concert, pre Ginger splitting.
ReplyDeleteI am fairly sure the issue here is respect. The reason so many people jump to Anne Hathaway's defence is because she's respected, while all the other examples aren't. All the examples you're giving of men feeling justified in snapping a picture of a woman's exposed body stem from the same root cause: if you don't respect the woman, you're not going to respect her body, choices, privacy, decency, rights and so on.
ReplyDeleteThe key problem, I think, is how our misogynistic society determines which women get respect, which don't, how much respect they're afforded, under what circumstances, and the convolutes twisting rules they need to obey in order to "earn" it. It's a disgrace, but the only way we're going to fix it is by holding back disrespectful commentaries regardless of what the woman in question has done, and insist repeatedly that all women deserve respect no matter what they do or don't do, period.
I could say something profound here to match your profoundness, but instead, I'm just going to comment on the 'knowing who the Spice Girls are makes you old' thing, because if it does, I'm seriously screwed, and they still charge me extra to rent a car! Guess it's all downhill from here... I'm gonna go sign up for the AARP. :P
ReplyDeleteI first heard about this incident on your blog, and have looked at a few media sources since then...overwhelmingly, people's attitude seems to be "she's a celebrity, she should have known it would happen." I cannot begin to express my outrage at this sentiment.
ReplyDeleteAnne is an adult. She is allowed to go out in public sans underwear if she so chooses (is it news when a man goes commando? I think not). The reason she chose to go sans underwear is none of our business (VPL, maybe the fabric was clingy and rode up, it is even possible that she just enjoys the breeze), however, as an adult SHE IS FREE TO MAKE THIS DECISION. This decision doesn't make her a target, it doesn't mean she was asking for it. This is rape culture in action, and it makes me absolutely furious. It has nothing to do with whether or not Anne is a serious actor... she did not consent to a stranger taking a photograph of her genitalia.
Another interesting (and by interesting, I mean please, let me push you down a slide of razors into a pool of alcohol) response is that because Hathaway has done films with nudity in the past, she shouldn't care that ladytown was out on display for the public. Speaking as a desperate, wannabe actor (I'll spend the rest of my life teaching it instead), there is a huge difference between nudity in the context of a film (in Hathaway's case, any nudity i've seen has been done in an artistic context, and not just to get a set of tits on the screen for controversy's sake) and the context in which this photo was taken. The issue comes back to consent... Hathaway has consented to nudity in a film... SHE DID NOT SAY YES TO THIS PHOTO BEING TAKEN.
I'm getting awfully ranty here, but this idea of asking for it makes me sick to my stomach. No means no. Anne didn't ask for this photo to be taken, and the question she encountered in her interview with Lauer are tantamount to slut shaming and victim blaming.
*curtseys and steps off soapbox* I'll be here all week!
Is it perhaps not more of the sense that - she is someone who doesn't tend to act recklessly, therefore when something like this happens there is a general sense of it not really being her fault at all. It was an unfortunate incident - we all encounter unfortunate incidents - and she was particularly unfortunate in that there was someone who captured an eternal memory of that moment.
ReplyDeleteBritney/Paris/LiLo et al are repeatedly reckless and there is a certain inevitability of their flashing in some way or another.
If we have 2 friends - friend 'A' who speeds in their car everywhere they go and friend 'B'who never speeds. When friend A gets caught by the police, we will have less sympathy than if friend B were to get caught the 1 time they have crept over the speed limit this year.
People will treat you as you suggest you should be treated. Therefore - continue to dress up as a sexual object and people will follow in line and treat you as a sexual object. I don't think it is realistic to paint them as mentally unable to make the distinction for themselves or unable to defend themselves.
I don't think this is comparable to the idea of drunk girls bringing rape on themselves, and I also don't think that '...society now grudgingly admits that raping drunk girls is wrong'. I think society has always had this view, but people like to suggest this is not the case in order to force a point.
This is not a case of sexism or moral judgement. It is a simply people are more likely to feel for a person when they experience an unfortunate event when that person doesn't tend to put them in situations where that event is a likely outcome.
Okay, but your theory only works if we live in a completely neutral culture where sexism doesn't exist. If the world were black and white, what you're saying holds water. But it's not, and the rules aren't the same for everyone. Also, comparing outspoken female sexuality to bad driving is beyond misogynistic. It sets up the "rules of the road" as being good drivers = good girls who don't do anything overtly sexual, dangerous drivers = women with dangerous sexuality. You're being incredibly misogynistic here, and the sad thing is that judging from the rest of your statements (like people using date rape to "force a point") you won't even bother listening to me when I'm telling you why what you're saying is offensive.
DeleteAs for it not being realistic to paint Britney as not being smart enough to not flash her vulva... the state of California declared her mentally unfit to take care of herself or her children. That's not me making a judgement based on a persona.