Jennifer Lawrence is trying to open up closed, rigid, old fashioned minds, about FEMINISM

This stunning lady is a self proclaimed feminist. So she was given a lot of stick for showing 'too much flesh' recently.


WTF????     Do people still have the outdated idea that as a feminist she must not attempt to look feminine in any way? Should she have turned up in a nasty grey boiler suit, with cropped hair?


It's cringeworthy the way some misguided women treat the term as a dirty word and explain  "I am not a feminist" in their debates, like it's beneath them... I mean, God forbid, shock, horror,  that anyone should think they are feminists.  




----------------------------------------------------------

Some old fashioned myths about feminism:-
They are all political activists
They are all placard waving militants
They go on demonstrations.
They are lesbians
I (jules) am a feminist and none of the above applies to me.    Feminism is a state of mind where you believe in parity  and equality between men & women, that's all. It's just a philosophy your head. Hence why some male politicians proudly call themselves feminists.  

Now I get it, real feminism is putting your body on suggestive display and almost wearing a dress in the same old traditional manner so you can be judged on how attractive you are and not on what you can actually achieve whatever you look like. Hmm nice one Jennifer, good message.

Showing your body has always gotten women attention, always has and always will, some women have even made a career from one outfit.


Jennifer Lawrence has talent as well as looks, and I love her when she is being interviewed...she always looks a bit merry, she obviously knows how to enjoy herself.

Because the women are standing in solidarity against the bad treatment some have suffered in the past should they cover themselves up? I don't think so personally.....what message would that send?

Covering up is not the problem really you can be attractive and beautiful without wearing clothes that are deliberately styled to be provocative in that age old way. If people want to cover up fine, if they want to be a naturist fine, its the barely wearable 'dress' . Its the wrong message, you need to wear half a dress to get noticed, you have to be 'beautiful' to be noticed.

Vintage wrote:Covering up is not the problem really you can be attractive and beautiful without wearing clothes that are deliberately styled to be provocative in that age old way. If people want to cover up fine, if they want to be a naturist fine, its the barely wearable 'dress' . Its the wrong message, you need to wear half a dress to get noticed, you have to be 'beautiful' to be noticed.  

Good looks will always get a person noticed in show business Vintage, and in lots of other professions too, it might not be pc or fair, but it is a fact.

I think outfits always look classier if they don't show too much flesh at both ends....wear low cut with a longer hemline, or show lots of leg and less cleavage....leave a bit to the imagination.

But its personal choice really.

[quote="Syl"]

Vintage wrote:Covering up is not the problem really you can be attractive and beautiful without wearing clothes that are deliberately styled to be provocative in that age old way. If people want to cover up fine, if they want to be a naturist fine, its the barely wearable 'dress' . Its the wrong message, you need to wear half a dress to get noticed, you have to be 'beautiful' to be noticed.  

Good looks will always get a person noticed in show business Vintage, and in lots of other professions too, it might not be pc or fair, but it is a fact.

I think outfits always look classier if they don't show too much flesh at both ends....wear low cut with a longer hemline .


Showing flesh socially, apart from on the beach is mainly a female thing though, why is that acceptable but the male of the species is not expected to wear a suit or tuxedo with cut outs in his trousers showing his bum cheeks or trousers so low slung his bits are only just covered. I have nothing against someone being beautiful or enhancing their looks but it all gets a bit sordid and sad when women have to display as much flesh as they dare in order to be noticed or considered beautiful, some designer clothes are down right ridiculous and must be incredibly uncomfortable. I mean the clothes women have been expected to endure to be fashionable is ludicrous
corsets, suspenders, t*t tape and chicken fillets not to mention bras with a network of straps like a medieval torture in order to wear some styles of dresses.

Hmmmm. Don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that feminists can’t look sexy.

What is so wonderful about Western 'sexy' its a business and a social pressure. People in other cultures, of all shapes and sizes, seem to find each other appealing buck naked in the jungle or plainly and modestly dressed without having to wear sexy clothes and hike their boobs up to their ear lobes.

Vintage wrote:Now I get it, real feminism is putting your body on suggestive display and almost wearing a dress in the same old traditional manner so you can be judged on how attractive you are and not on what you can actually achieve whatever you look like. Hmm nice one Jennifer, good message.

That's quite tame, by red carpet standards.  Many women show a LOT more flesh - some come close to blatant nudity.  


Jennifer gets the stick from all sides. Both ardent feminists and ardent anti-feminists criticise her for showing so much flesh.


But she's very emotionally secure and just carries on doing her own thing. She won't let anyone dictate to her how to dress.

[

She won't let anyone dictates to her how to dress.[/quote]


I think she does though, the way she almost dresses is currently the way to look and be 'sexy'. If she wore something not traditionally revealing but not a boiler suit of course, I might agree with you.

A staunch feminist won the heart of a guy from the county's most prestigious and powerful family. This prince could have chosen almost anyone out of literally thousands of nubile young aristocratic women. He chose her. Hooray.

Vintage wrote:[

She won't let anyone dictates to her how to dress.

I think she does though, the way she almost dresses is currently the way to look and be 'sexy'. If she wore something not traditionally revealing but not a boiler suit of course, I might agree with you.[/quote]

I think that was literally the complaint in the is case, She arrived in Appropriate clothing for the cold (like the men were wearing) then dropped the heavy coat for the photos. which is not very feminist and is continuing the unrealistic beauty expectations for Young Women that think that JL goes out in the that sort of dress in sub zero weather, so they should too if they want to be Fashionable.
So the problem is that it is fake, an Image crafted for a Press release. It's no different than a photo shopped image
she's acting like a mannequin that doesn't feel the cold and not a feminist role model for young women.

Jules, greenies from me.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking provocative and attractive, and  carrying on the feminist tradition. Is there some uniform of hairy armpits and pubic hair sticking out? Everyone tries on a style.

@Jules and Quill
I think you both missed what people where complaining about

Pictures from the media event show Lawrence flanked by co-stars Joel Edgerton, Jeremy Irons, Matthias Schoenaerts and director Francis Lawrence, on a balcony of London’s Corinthia Hotel.

Given that it’s the middle of winter in the UK at the moment — and bloody cold — many were quick to express their shock that the actor was wearing a plunging Versace dress, while the men in the picture were rugged up in coats and long pants.

It appeared to be the perfect example of the contrast between men and women in show business.

it's not that she wore a Sexy Dress, it's that she felt the need to get half naked for 5 minutes for PHOTOS to create just another example of Unrealistic beauty/behaviour expectations for young girls.
she says she choose to in the name of Fashion, but Fashion like that is also an extension of the different expectations of Male and Female actors (and people in general) which she re-enforces with her choices.
Just Maybe She isn't a great feminist role model, she might support it, I do too but I'm not going to claim to be some poster child for the movement and neither should she. And there is NOTHING wrong with that, it's better than being a fake or just giving lip service to a cause.

While no one was suggesting Lawrence had been forced to wear the dress, the contrast between the exposed star and her rugged up male colleagues became a topic of discussion on social media, who noted the “quietly depressing” double standard at play.

She's cute. She ever do anything important?

Maddog wrote:She's cute. She ever do anything important?

lots of movies, not sure if that counts (I haven't seen any of them, the Hunger Games was one )

she is one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood at the moment.
she is a bigger celebrity than any of the men in the photo

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:She's cute. She ever do anything important?

lots of movies, not sure if that counts (I haven't seen any of them, the Hunger Games was one )

she is one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood at the moment.
she is a bigger celebrity than any of the men in the photo

What men?

that's the Pic that was ORIGINALLY posted commented on by Twitter, not the one Jules posted.

veya_victaous wrote:

that's the Pic that was ORIGINALLY posted commented on by Twitter, not the one Jules posted.

What men?

Surely true feminism is a state of mind.
If a woman wants to wear a certain outfit, for whatever reason, she can do so as long as she isn't breaking any laws.
The present climate in Hollywood is women especially standing up and saying we wont be sexually abused and taken advantage of by men anymore.
Covering up would imo pander to the views that women are 'asking for it' if they dare to show off their bodies.
Jennifer Lawrence is wearing the sort of dress that has been the norm on the red carpet for years....ie, flaunt it if you have it, she has it, she is flaunting it.

Seriously, what woman in their right mind would wear a designer dress and pose for pics with a heavy overcoat covering it up?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:She's cute. She ever do anything important?

lots of movies, not sure if that counts (I haven't seen any of them, the Hunger Games was one )

she is one of the highest paid actresses in Hollywood at the moment.
she is a bigger celebrity than any of the men in the photo

Great diversity going from Katniss Everdeen in the Hunger Games film series (2012–2015), to confused wife, Rosalyn Rosenfeld, in the dark comedy American Hustle (2013), for which she won a BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role.

She is also the founder of the Jennifer Lawrence Foundation, through which she supports various charitable organizations.

Vintage wrote:Covering up is not the problem really you can be attractive and beautiful without wearing clothes that are deliberately styled to be provocative in that age old way. If people want to cover up fine, if they want to be a naturist fine, its the barely wearable 'dress' . Its the wrong message, you need to wear half a dress to get noticed, you have to be 'beautiful' to be noticed.  

Hi Vintage.     Let's forget about feminism for a minute.  The red carpet frocks are a BIG, BIG deal cos they give a boost to the fashion industry and several other professions too. >  

#the fashion industry which employs many people, is being showcased
#the paparazzi makes a living by taking glamorous photos.
#the glossy magazine reporters and editors too.
#TV stations get a boost too.



See, ...... a lot of ordinary people in the community make a living off of the clothes & the designer jewellery that these actresses advertise on the red carpet. It's not just the famous designers, it's the ordinary folks who put in hundreds of hours into stitching the dress together.

Fine but do they really have to be quite so as they are, deliberately provocotive or in many cases downright ridiculous. From my point of view its just re inforcing a stereotype - the last thing you want if you want change in attitudes.

Vintage wrote:Fine but do they really have to be quite so as they are, deliberately provocotive or in many cases downright ridiculous. From my point of view its just re inforcing a stereotype - the last thing you want if you want change in attitudes.

Not in her case tho.
Bottom line: Many people enjoy seeing these posh frock and we admire the luminous beauty of these women. Personally I find it uplifting especially when I know that the woman is as beautiful on the inside as on the outside.

I believe you can be as daring as you like and still remain classy...this Halle Berry dress was memorable for all the right reasons ....but fashion like everything is personal taste.

veya_victaous wrote:

I think that was literally the complaint in the is case, She arrived in Appropriate clothing for the cold (like the men were wearing) then dropped the heavy coat for the photos. which is not very feminist and is continuing the unrealistic beauty expectations for Young Women that think that JL goes out in the that sort of dress in sub zero weather, so they should too if they want to be Fashionable.
So the problem is that it is fake, an Image crafted for a Press release. It's no different than a photo shopped image
she's acting like a mannequin that doesn't feel the cold and not a feminist role model for young women.

Why should she conceal her fabulously expensive frock under a big hideous coat?   Think of these actresses as human billboards advertising the work of a huge number of people behind the scenes. She's boosting the employment prospects of local people, Veya!  Chill. 

Halle Berry looked wonderful without being obvious.
The photo with the women holding plackards says it all for me. There's a long way to go even with women.

Vintage wrote:Halle Berry looked wonderful without being obvious.
The photo with the women holding plackards says it all for me. There's a long way to go even with women.

I agree with you actually, a woman can look fabulous and sexy without being obvious.

The photo of the women with placards was funny though. It sort of plays right into the hands of the stereotypical feminist and women who would never admit to be a feminist.

veya_victaous wrote:@Jules and Quill
I think you both missed what people where complaining about

Pictures from the media event show Lawrence flanked by co-stars Joel Edgerton, Jeremy Irons, Matthias Schoenaerts and director Francis Lawrence, on a balcony of London’s Corinthia Hotel.

Given that it’s the middle of winter in the UK at the moment — and bloody cold — many were quick to express their shock that the actor was wearing a plunging Versace dress, while the men in the picture were rugged up in coats and long pants.

It appeared to be the perfect example of the contrast between men and women in show business.

it's not that she wore a Sexy Dress, it's that she felt the need to get half naked for 5 minutes for PHOTOS to create just another example of Unrealistic beauty/behaviour expectations for young girls.
she says she choose to in the name of Fashion, but Fashion like that is also an extension of the different expectations of Male and Female actors (and people in general) which she re-enforces with her choices.
Just Maybe She isn't a great feminist role model, she might support it, I do too but I'm not going to claim to be some poster child for the movement and neither should she. And there is NOTHING wrong with that, it's better than being a fake or just giving lip service to a cause.

While no one was suggesting Lawrence had been forced to wear the dress, the contrast between the exposed star and her rugged up male colleagues became a topic of discussion on social media, who noted the “quietly depressing” double standard at play.

All this, from an extemporaneous photo taken during a 'time-out' from a "media event"?? What was the media event? What were the requirements (roles) of each of the participants? These people are professional actors (well, one director), and they were presumably there in furtherance of their careers as actors, and the common project. Until we know the context of their being there, we are just prejudging.

Still photography is a difficult medium. It inevitably lacks the dimension of time, which motion gives us (as in motion pictures). About the only way it can show emotion or message is through stark contrasts. But stark contrasts also appear in chance encounters (nothing is so ridiculous as a stroll through a Hollywood movie lot, with many films being produced, and the juxtaposition of an actor in a dinosaur costume walking to the commissary with an actor dressed as a Russian cossack; see, for example, the ending in a film entitled Blazing Saddles).

With those visions fixed in one's mind, it becomes hard to justify such judgmentalism without context. Was this a chance photo, or one with a deliberate, intentional message? And what was the message? Have we merely usurped a image in time, and used it for our own messages. It seems strange (and suspicious) to go from a "media event" to discussing a moral theory such as feminism. Where's the tie...the connection? It's only fair if our message conforms to, or responds to the producers of the image intended.

Vintage wrote:
Now I get it, real feminism is putting your body on suggestive display and almost wearing a dress in the same old traditional manner so you can be judged on how attractive you are and not on what you can actually achieve whatever you look like. Hmm nice one Jennifer, good message.

Really can't help being an obnoxious old conservative fuckwit, can you...

Jealousy really is a curse with some of you anti-feminist snowflakes..

Have a red you ridiculous twit.

Syl wrote:Have a red you ridiculous twit.

Oh, and..

Go fuck yourself, you disgusting braindead old bag...

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@Jules and Quill
I think you both missed what people where complaining about


it's not that she wore a Sexy Dress, it's that she felt the need to get half naked for 5 minutes for PHOTOS to create just another example of Unrealistic beauty/behaviour expectations for young girls.
she says she choose to in the name of Fashion, but Fashion like that is also an extension of the different expectations of Male and Female actors (and people in general) which she re-enforces with her choices.
Just Maybe She isn't a great feminist role model, she might support it, I do too but I'm not going to claim to be some poster child for the movement and neither should she. And there is NOTHING wrong with that, it's better than being a fake or just giving lip service to a cause.

All this, from an extemporaneous photo taken during a 'time-out' from a "media event"??  What was the media event?  What were the requirements (roles) of each of the participants?  These people are professional actors (well, one director), and they were presumably there in furtherance of their careers as actors, and the common project.  Until we know the context of their being there, we are just prejudging.

Still photography is a difficult medium.  It inevitably lacks the dimension of time, which motion gives us (as in motion pictures).  About the only way it can show emotion or message is through stark contrasts.  But stark contrasts also appear in chance encounters (nothing is so ridiculous as a stroll through a Hollywood movie lot, with many films being produced, and the juxtaposition of an actor in a dinosaur costume walking to the commissary with an actor dressed as a Russian cossack; see, for example, the ending in a film entitled Blazing Saddles).

With those visions fixed in one's mind, it becomes hard to justify such judgmentalism without context.  Was this a chance photo, or one with a deliberate, intentional message?  And what was the message?  Have we merely usurped a image in time, and used it for our own messages.  It seems strange (and suspicious) to go from a "media event" to discussing a moral theory such as feminism.  Where's the tie...the connection?  It's only fair if our message conforms to, or responds to the producers of the image intended.

Looking at that photo, one could always wonder why she at least made the effort an the men didn't really bother to.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Vintage wrote:
Now I get it, real feminism is putting your body on suggestive display and almost wearing a dress in the same old traditional manner so you can be judged on how attractive you are and not on what you can actually achieve whatever you look like. Hmm nice one Jennifer, good message.

Really can't help being an obnoxious old conservative fuckwit, can you...

Jealousy really is a curse with some of you anti-feminist snowflakes..

You have such a way with words, you old smoothie you. Especially on certain occassions eh?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All this, from an extemporaneous photo taken during a 'time-out' from a "media event"??  What was the media event?  What were the requirements (roles) of each of the participants?  These people are professional actors (well, one director), and they were presumably there in furtherance of their careers as actors, and the common project.  Until we know the context of their being there, we are just prejudging.

Still photography is a difficult medium.  It inevitably lacks the dimension of time, which motion gives us (as in motion pictures).  About the only way it can show emotion or message is through stark contrasts.  But stark contrasts also appear in chance encounters (nothing is so ridiculous as a stroll through a Hollywood movie lot, with many films being produced, and the juxtaposition of an actor in a dinosaur costume walking to the commissary with an actor dressed as a Russian cossack; see, for example, the ending in a film entitled Blazing Saddles).

With those visions fixed in one's mind, it becomes hard to justify such judgmentalism without context.  Was this a chance photo, or one with a deliberate, intentional message?  And what was the message?  Have we merely usurped a image in time, and used it for our own messages.  It seems strange (and suspicious) to go from a "media event" to discussing a moral theory such as feminism.  Where's the tie...the connection?  It's only fair if our message conforms to, or responds to the producers of the image intended.

Looking at that photo, one could always wonder why she at least made the effort an the men didn't really bother to.

That's why you ask for context. Chrissake, she's an actor. Don't actors pay attention to costuming? How you can go from a still photo like that, to criticizing her feminist views, is beyond me.

Perhaps the invitations for the women was 'cocktail dress', and for men, scarves and greatcoats, please. Wasn't it a film about Russians? Not a very good 'Sparrow' if you show up in a Chilean Parka.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Looking at that photo, one could always wonder why she at least made the effort an the men didn't really bother to.

That's why you ask for context.  Chrissake, she's an actor.  Don't actors pay attention to costuming?  How you can go from a still photo like that, to criticizing her feminist views, is beyond me.

Perhaps the invitations for the women was 'cocktail dress', and for men, scarves and greatcoats, please.  Wasn't it a film about Russians?  Not a very good 'Sparrow' if you show up in a Chilean Parka.  

I havent criticised her at all, I think she is great.
My point was the men look like they made no effort at all.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's why you ask for context.  Chrissake, she's an actor.  Don't actors pay attention to costuming?  How you can go from a still photo like that, to criticizing her feminist views, is beyond me.

Perhaps the invitations for the women was 'cocktail dress', and for men, scarves and greatcoats, please.  Wasn't it a film about Russians?  Not a very good 'Sparrow' if you show up in a Chilean Parka.  

I havent criticised her at all, I think she is great.
My point was the men look like they made no effort at all.

Don't try to hide.  You were holding her up as model for fakery, for her dedication to feminism.  But you used a false vehicle: you used a photographic statement that was not a statement at all, but a prop.  By ignoring the symbolism, you denied her the statement.

Now, that's what I call fakery.

Vintage wrote:Fine but do they really have to be quite so as they are, deliberately provocotive or in many cases downright ridiculous. From my point of view its just re inforcing a stereotype - the last thing you want if you want change in attitudes.

agree

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
I havent criticised her at all, I think she is great.
My point was the men look like they made no effort at all.

Don't try to hide.  You were holding her up as model for fakery, for her dedication to feminism.  But you used a false vehicle: you used a photographic statement that was not a statement at all, but a prop.  By ignoring the symbolism, you denied her the statement.

Now, that's what I call fakery.

Why would I try to hide? my posts are clear for everyone to read.
As for fake......put that mirror down.

Hey, chill guys.  

We all appear to contradict ourselves sometimes ...... cos we live in a complex, confusing and fast changing world. Inevitably our posts will occasionally display cognitive dissonance.


Cognitive dissonance does not mean we're being hypocritical, it means we're only human.


I awarded Syl a ''Thanks'' for plentiful and interesting contribution to the topic, and I gave her a green just for showing Halle Berry's dress, .... loved that dress.  


When the software allows it, I will give Wolfe, Quill and the other guys greenies too, for their passionately-delivered opinions on the topic (and for being such skilled devil's advocates.  But perhaps you could tone down the cursing and swearing??   )

Jennifer Lawrence has the highest female earning power in hollywood at present and therefore carries the most clout, politically. Top Dog!

Bye now. Off for a few days. xxx

Jules wrote:Jennifer Lawrence has the highest female earning power in hollywood at present and therefore carries the most clout, politically. Top Dog!

Bye now. Off for a few days. xxx

I wonder what would happen to her earning power if she became fat and even worse old and didn't age well.

We still seem to be accepting that its ok to judge someone on their looks and value them for that, especially women, if the plain or downright 'ugly' ones are very clever, we may just let them do scientific research, mostly behind the scenes of course so no one is offended but on the whole at best laugh at them and make jokes at their expense or at worst treat them as if they don't exist and have little or no say.

Jules wrote:Hey, chill guys.  

We all appear to contradict ourselves sometimes ...... cos we live in a complex, confusing and fast changing world. Inevitably our posts will occasionally display cognitive dissonance.


Cognitive dissonance does not mean we're being hypocritical, it means we're only human.


I awarded Syl a ''Thanks'' for plentiful and interesting contribution to the topic, and I gave her a green just for showing Halle Berry's dress, .... loved that dress.  


When the software allows it, I will give Wolfe, Quill and the other guys greenies too, for their passionately-delivered opinions on the topic (and for being such skilled devil's advocates.  But perhaps you could tone down the cursing and swearing??   )

Thank you Jules.
I have enjoyed the thread.....I like a bit of showbizzy talk as you know.
I'm not sure how Quill could so wrongly misconstrue what I have said throughout the thread....but to be clear once and for all....I LOVE JENIFER LAWRENCE.

Vintage wrote:

Jules wrote:Jennifer Lawrence has the highest female earning power in hollywood at present and therefore carries the most clout, politically. Top Dog!

Bye now. Off for a few days. xxx

I wonder what would happen to her earning power if she became fat and even worse old and didn't age well.

We still seem to be accepting that its ok to judge someone on their looks and value them for that, especially women, if the plain or downright 'ugly' ones are very clever, we may just let them do scientific research, mostly behind the scenes of course so no one is offended but on the whole at best laugh at them and make jokes at their expense or at worst treat them as if they don't exist and have little or no say.

I do know what you are saying. Women in films...especially in Hollywood, are coveted when they are young and sexy, most have spoken out about being ignored when they reach a certain age, only the select few carry on working after they reach 50...even 40.
Its not unusual in film to see a very much older old man with a young love interest.

But....as long as Jennifer Lawrence is choosing her own dresses, making her own choices, and I believe she certainly does, she can wear whatever she likes when she likes, a revealing dress doesn't diminish either her feminism or her feminist views.

How is this for a lookalike?


"Zubaida Tharwat (14 June 1940 – 13 December 2016) (Arabic: زبيدة ثروت‎ Egyptian Arabic pronunciation: [zebeːda sarwat]) was an Egyptian film, stage and television actress who was known for "the most beautiful eyes in classic Egyptian cinema".

But....as long as Jennifer Lawrence is choosing her own dresses, making her own choices, and I believe she certainly does, she can wear whatever she likes when she likes, a revealing dress doesn't diminish either her feminism or her  feminist views.



[/quote]


Yes indeed, but why is she making the choice to wear revealing dresses? Maybe because its the thing to do to get noticed, not very feminist in my fuddy duddy
opinion and not sending the right message to young women especially those who may not have the required attributes.

Vintage wrote:
But....as long as Jennifer Lawrence is choosing her own dresses, making her own choices, and I believe she certainly does, she can wear whatever she likes when she likes, a revealing dress doesn't diminish either her feminism or

Yes indeed, but why is she making the choice to wear revealing dresses? Maybe because its the thing to do to get noticed, not very feminist in my fuddy duddy
opinion and not sending the right message to young women especially those who may not have the required attributes.

No doubt many will agree with you.