Never one to shy away from having an opinion, last week Piers Morgan took to Twitter to lambaste model Emily Ratajkowski (she’s the one from the Blurred Lines video) about a photo shoot she did.  This photo shoot involved her clad only in her underwear (and weirdly a pair of mittens) whilst suggestively eating pasta.  It was clearly pasta dressed in olive oil because Emily – who is apparently a very messy eater – had managed to also cover herself in most of the pesky greasy stuff in the process and she was all kinds of shiny…..

She later went on to post the pics on social media and describe the experience as “empowering,” to which Morgan had the following response:-

This is Emily Ratajkowski ‘promoting feminism’. 
Somewhere, Emmeline Pankhurst just vomited.

Ouch Piersy, that’s a bit harsh, isn’t it?  Well kind of….but I can also see where he’s coming from too.  I’m pretty sure that the freedom to eat carbs in your wispy slips of nothingness is not quite what Pankhurst had in mind but with the whole suffragette movement. Then again, times change – things move on.  Which brings me to Ratajkowski’s response:-

“In the wake of the Harvey [Weinstein] fallout and women coming forward with incredible amounts of sexual harassment cases, I have been so disappointed to hear women talk about “modesty” and “our responsibility” as if we need to, yet again, adjust to make it “easier” for the rest of the world. I’m tired of having to consider how I might be perceived by men if I wear a short skirt or post a sexy Instagram. I want to do what I want to do. Feminism isn’t about adjusting, it’s about freedom and choice.”

Fair point, well made lady.  However, I think what has got Morgan all riled up is how one-dimensional Ratajkowski’s brand of feminism seemingly is.  It’s kind of like Trump batting off any stories that he doesn’t personally like as “fake news” because that’s a label that he’s more comfortable with.  As a highly-paid model who makes a living from being provocative, sexy and suggestive, it really is quite convenient for Ratajowski to brand that as  “feminism” when (pardon the pun) she’s apparently not bringing anything else to the table.  I’m really not certain that Stacey from Accounts would get away with playing the feminism card if she was caught writhing around on the staff room table at lunchtime in her undies; covered in a couple of packets of super-noodles and half a pound of lard.

Let’s be completely honest here.  When Robin Thicke employed Emily to take part in his video and when Love Magazine hired her to pose in their Advent Calendar; they didn’t do it because of the feminist values she embodies. No.  They did so because she’s a sexy girl and they know that SEX SELLS.  Period.   As sad as it may be; if the advertising industry didn’t make a living off objectifying gorgeous nubile young women; Ratajkowski wouldn’t have a job.  Whilst that’s a job where she gets paid handsomely for her troubles and therefore isn’t exactly being exploited; I’m not entirely sure it’s feminism either.

So, Morgan maybe needs to adjust his compass, get in the 21st century and stop being so….well…..prissy…..but maybe it’s also time that Emily Ratajkowski stopped throwing around the feminism label every time she gets her clothes off and just call it for what it is – business. Oh, and whilst your at it EM, learn some table manners.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *