So, if you follow Olivia Wilde’s Twitter feed, you know she can be a pretty funny lady. Also pretty. But also just funny. And you know how I love me a funny lady. You probably also know I love to look at pretty, funny ladies. I am totally not above a good ogle now and, well, kind of now. Though, I try to appeal to my own better angels by making it a respect-based objectification I practice here at Surrenders HQ. But, still, I unabashedly like to look at the ladies. It comes with the whole gay thing. Which brings me back to Olivia. The very nice to look at Ms. Wilde appears on one of two new covers for the New British GQ Comedy Issue. Which, you know, is fine and good. She’s wearing a bra and jeans and precious little else. See, women are both pretty and funny and pretty funny. But then, oh dear, then things get complicated. The other cover features a host of funny fellows, all dressed in their GQ best. They are dubbed “The Kings of Comedy.” Right, I know – this is a lad’s mag. What should I expect? But then, then they had to go and release a video trailer to promote the issue. And, well, here’s where things get at once more complicated and more basic. Please, sit back and take in the next 1 minute and 48 seconds.Right. So, yeah. I’m guessing you rewound back to second :14 a couple, few, dozen, wore out the button – eh? Yes, people of the Internet. Olivia Wilde just jiggled her boobs for your enjoyment. Boobs. Jiggle. Yes.
Oh, but here is where that complicated v. basic thing comes in. On the one hand, as a red-blooded American gay lady, I am drooling a little over my keyboard and high fiving my cat at the sight of a lady as luscious as Olivia giving the ladies a little loving. On the other hand, as a women’s studies minor earning progressive feminist lady, I am fairly appalled that Olivia is the only woman included and being put into an assortment of skimpy outfits while the men are all wearing full suits. So it goes like this:
Brain: This is so sexist!
Area Lower Than Brain: Shut up and hit rewind!
I’ll admit, it is kind of a chicken and egg situation. Which is right? Are both answers right? Are both answers wrong? I think, in the interest of science, we should watch those 3 seconds in question again and again and again. For science. Yep. Science.
13 comments:
I had similar mixed feelings about the Christina Hendricks leaked pictures. I felt bad about the invasion of her privacy, but that didn't stop me from Googling them as soon as I knew they existed :-/ I am a rubbish feminist.
I think I would be more conflicted, but her eyes look really dead and somehow the whole thing is really awkward. The whole thing seems really forced, it's way more fun when boob jiggling happens spontaneously.
I manage to both agree and disagree with Nicky - first sentence yeah!, second sentence nooh!
Olivia's dead eyes thing is, I'm sure, the source of the humour there and, to give the guys or at least the editors a break, I think they are aware of that. That's not so much of a,
"Get yer tits out for the lads," expression but more of a,
"Well you can try but you might just loose the front rows of your teeth... maybe", type of eyeballing.
Isn't it the intent and the level of respect given to the subject that's most important, i.e. being allowed to look does not confer any rights - they must be given.
I think it's possible to 'appreciate' a smashing looking lady without that being intrusive and disrespectful. The outward displays of 'oogling' by many men, (and shamefully some women,) is nothing more than a form of sexual oppression; a misogynistic degradation of women and the perceived threat of their sexual power. [Has Mr Limbaugh been run out of town yet?] I think this is why as LGBTers we need to be mindful of how we express the lady love - we don't get a free pass just because we are women. Of course, you then have to factor in the fact that all women want (and indeed, occasionally demand!) to be appreciated. I don't think that's too difficult a balance to strike - Snarkers doesn't do too bad a job of it! :-)
13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As you can see above I am a devout "HOUSe" fan. Me and 13 have SOOO much in common.
Now on the degredation. We are women. Oppressed since beginning of big bang.
I have one simple maxim: women can because they are naturally polite/kind/well behaved. Men cannot (they are steroidal) and if they do they will be lowered to the basement dungeon where Rush Limbaugh now survives.
I have never been an oggler of the boobs or booty (except for the phenom, Christina Hendricks). Just not in my genes for some reason. I do admire a good set of proportional leggs on both sexes. On spiders? no waaaaaay!!
I do love to watch my lady friends who enjoy such things to enjoy such things. It's fun. Is this a double standard? Yes, but we're oppressed, and THEY are and will always be entitled and privileged piglets.
Snarker can do anything she wants. She is my god. ;)
They look so...jiggleable.
Olivia Wilde does nothing for me so I'm appalled at the video.
Also I've noticed an annoying double standard in the gay community: when women objectify women oh that's totally fine cause women can't be sexist right? *sarcasm* But when men objectify women, that is NOT OK! How dare they!
Well objectify IS objectify sorry. But I can't say I'm surprised by the video or GQ for that matter.
I agree with Florence - except that part about Olivia Wilde doing nothing for me, I quite enjoy Ms. Wilde. (The weird boob jiggling going on here doesn't really do it for me, but I like Olivia Wilde in general.) Women can definitely be sexist, and can objectify each other. It's difficult because I do enjoy looking at a beautiful woman, but how do you know when you've crossed the line from respectful appreciation to objectification? I think Ms. Snarker keeps a good balance here but it seems the GQ video doesn't. (I can't see it where I am so I'm just going by others' comments.) Also, according to Olivia's twitter feed, GQ apparently took a comment she made about being "sexually mature" out of context, or the wrong way. She says she meant she was comfortable from a relatively young age talking about complex sexual issues, but I can only imagine how GQ framed that comment.
This is how I read it:
Olivia Wilde has been asked to be part of a video for GQ.
GQ is a 'men's magazine'.
Olivia Wilde is famously a very sexy woman.
But this is the 'Comedy Issue'.
So Ms Wilde is making fun of the fact that she is *expected* to be sexy by staring dead pan into the camera while jiggling her breasts. It's a parody of fan service.
I think we should be more worried about the fact that she is the only woman included and the only one who isn't a professional comedian.
I love how in all of this boob-jiggling confusion, no one has mentioned that Olivia Wilde has had a haircut...
Also, for what it's worth, I think the difference between appreciating an attractive woman's jiggly boobs in a respectful manner and objectifying her is that those of us on the good side understand that the boob jiggler is a sum of her parts and her boobs are most definitely not the most important part about her (though they are very nice!)
I Love Olivia! But I found the video boring. As far as the 'right/wrong argument goes... I vote for wrong if the only reason the woman is included is to objectify her. This seems to be case. Evidence: 1. no female comediennes were included. 2. Olivia isn't giving a stand-up routine but jiggling her boobs. 3. Olivia's 'outfit' isn't in the same fashion as everyone else's. And I don't mean Same Clothes. I mean what is this style of dress representative of?
So, yeah, this example leaves me cold. I'll pass on this issue of GQ.
What's going on with the blog? :(
You should be focussing of Ellen's sexiness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTPFP34yfag&feature=youtu.be
0:40
Oh Snarkers! Your science is the best kind of science. I did get a little dizzy watching that clip too closely. Re: fogged up my monitor. Is that possible? (Apparently)
I am a strong feminist and I don't like to objec....
that gif. oh sweet lord that gif.
Post a Comment