Well.... this is interesting if we think about it. It seems hypocritical- pointing out that some in the industry are oversexualized and treated like objects- then posting this. But then again..Firstly, the fact a woman can’t just take a picture from that angle without it being assumed to be a sexual pic is somewhat the point no? I admit- it is hard to argue it isn’t meant to have some sex appeal- but just consider that the default for most of a woman’s body is to assign some erotic significance. A hint of thigh, the shoulders, even the neck are given a sexual commutation in images of women that they rarely are in men. It let’s just agree that it’s blatantly sexual then? So what? She said it as offensive the way the industry specialized women. If a woman expresses her sexuality on her own, that’s her business. You’re likely fine touching your genitals to wash them at least- few people are fine with any stranger just washing their genitals- let alone and sell tickets to watch.
But she posted that pic, by her will, and so it gives her power over what people can see and in what setting. Some younger stars don’t have that power. Just look at the Stranger Things kids. Notice how older women actors rarely have a romantic role, when older men actors do.
She also has a choice in working in " oversexualized " roles. No ones forcing her to do anything, and there are laws protecting younger stars.
And that's due to ageism not oversexualization. That's something ageing actresses are trying to change.
Women just have to be sexy to be in things, and that's the trouble. Yes, there are laws protecting the children, but that doesn't stop the children from being dressed up and treated differently.
Then if they want to do it they do it. They have the option of sexualized stuff but they're the ones who take it. You can't say " wow McDonalds really sucks they should shut them all down " if you're patroning or working there because you're the reason they're there.
There are non sexualized roles to choose from as well as other occupation options and nothing is stopping all the women complaining from making non sexualized age inclusive titles and roles.
It’s not so simple. Can a person not oppose environmental pollution if they work at a company that pollutes? Most people are against slave and child labor, or exploitation of the third world, failure to pay fair wages- yet most products commonly bought violate these ideas or come through channels that undermine those causes like amazon or eBay. If one wants to make movies, one must be in the movie industry. How many block buster movies came out in the last year that one could say were totally free of female sexualization? After you count them, tell me, if all female performers refused to be in any sexualized movie, how many would have jobs last year in film? They could walk away. Loose any public face to expose the issue, let women who don’t care take the roles and everything can stay the same. Or they can use their public position to try and make positive change while they are in the spot light.
Yeah, playtime and worktime are DIFFERENT times. When I’m at work, I work. Trying ‘play’ wont be successful and I probably won’t do any projects with you. But then, I get to choose. Other ladies, not so much. Whining that there’s a worktime BUT ALSO! it’s obvious sometimes playtime!! Infantile nonsense. I pick the timing of my availability. I control the messages I release. Because it’s my damn self. I don’t understand the whining. But when it’s reflex to say but-but-but, maybe don’t talk.
And that's due to ageism not oversexualization. That's something ageing actresses are trying to change.
There are non sexualized roles to choose from as well as other occupation options and nothing is stopping all the women complaining from making non sexualized age inclusive titles and roles.