Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Find out more hereHide
Custom Search
Sort by: Relevance Relevance Date |
Web |
Series: Jessica Valenti column
The Emma Watson nude photos threat was a hoax – but it was still a threat
Sexually threatening an outspoken woman to shine a light on how outspoken women are sexually threatened? That’s idiotic
When we thought 4chan had
threatened to leak nude pictures of Emma Watson
as retaliation for her United Nations speech on feminism
last week, it was outrage-on-internet-business as usual. After all, women being verbally attacked and sexually threatened for speaking up is nothing new. Finding out that it was all part of a hoax, however, means He-for-She-gate is a full-blown meta-misogynist clusterfuck.
Rantic Media (also known as Social VEVO), the
supposed marketering bros
behind the threat – hoax or no, it was still a threat – swears that the goal was to bring attention to the sexism of 4chan
and the recent celebrity photo leaks. But sexually threatening an outspoken woman to shine a light on how outspoken women are sexually threatened – well, that’s idiotic at best. The Emma Watson hoax was a cravenly opportunistic move to gin up attention using a real issue, a real woman and real fear that women and marginalized groups across the internet face constantly. That’s not marketing or consciousness-raising: it’s harassment.
And what was this intended to prove (other than, perhaps,
some nebulous point about the media’s gullibility)? We all already know that 4chan is a cesspool. Using their tactics is like throwing a bag of garbage into the dump: you’re just adding to the stink.
The Rantic
“firm”
of men didn’t actually believe that women would be grateful, or that they were doing anything to further the conversation about misogyny online, nor about social media threats or celebrity privacy. The supposed hoaxers just wanted their 15 minutes, their 140 characters. The only thing Emma Watson’s harassers achieved was to remind women that our bodies and the sexual fear with which we’ve been instilled since childhood are usable as a joke. As a way to drum up traffic.
The takeaway from their “funny” hoax is supposed to be
Everyone loves a sex scandal!
– but that’s only true if you’re not the one being attacked, or you’ll never be the one being attacked.
Sexual harassment and online threats against women aren’t something to joke about or try out in service of some imagined greater good: believe me, no good came of this.
The
one
maybe-bright spot in this week-long Watson scandal is that clearly vitriolic sexism is finally seen as an outrage, and it might finally provoke action. Though, if the threat had been directed at a woman other than the squeaky-clean young, white, former-Hermione, I’m not sure that would have inevitably been the case.
But to the men who decided Watson’s sense of safety was worth throwing to the internet wolves so long as it meant making a splash: Why not try to reclaim that part of your humanity about which Watson spoke so eloquently
in her UN speech? Instead of using women’s bodies and fear and sexuality to make money, get attention and feel like men, consider becoming a more “true and complete version” of yourself. And if that completed guy is still an asshole, do us all a favor and back away from the computer. Permanently.
Get the best of Comment is free
The most shared comment, analysis and editorial articles delivered every weekday lunchtime.
Sign up for the Comment is free email
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center
for more information.
|
x
Sign up for the Guardian today - UK edition
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
(Emails are sent every morning)
|
These comments have been chosen by Guardian staff because they contribute to the debate.
- No comments have been picked yet.
- There are no staff replies yet.
Open for comments. Sign in
or create your Guardian account
to join the discussion.
-
9 people, 12 comments
-
SistianaA dirkbruereRecommend175I think Valenti's principal disappointment is that not everything she reads on the Internet is true.
-
RvonMises dirkbruereRecommend17
And with good reason. 4chan is best ignored.Because nobody else is. -
megabrainz RvonMisesRecommend16I expect the women who have already had their private photographs shared with the world find it harder to ignore.
-
Tiggerj dirkbruereRecommend224chan is, for the most part, not the 4chan that people refer to.It'd be like referring to the Guardian as an entity when really it's just one writer you have a problem with.Majority of the shit that comes out of 4chan is from 4chan/b
-
RvonMises megabrainz$chan do this sort of thing because they get a reaction out of it. They'd be no point in doing these things if we ignored them, as you might with a toddler throwing a tantrum.
-
imperium3 megabrainzThey'd find it a little easier if "NAKED LEAK" hadn't been splashed across every major newspaper, of course...
-
johnstuartmill TiggerjRecommend12Exactly. 4Chan doesn't really exist as an entity. The fact that reporters keep missing this drives me crazy. Blaming 4Chan for this is like blaming the paper industry for something you didn't like in a newspaper.
-
megabrainz RvonMisesThat's rubbish. Asking someone to ignore the fact that naked pictures of them have been published on the internet because "they only do it to get a reaction" - that's probably true of Isis behading people too, but in reality ignoring it doesn't actually make it go away. And for the victims, it's impossible to ignore.
-
thierrytt1 megabrainzThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
Tiggerj johnstuartmillWhat kills me is when people refer to 4chan as an entity and then make a comment that makes it sound like they're an expert on the subject matter.
Show 9 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:16pm -
-
5 people, 5 commentsSpencertheHalfwitRecommend256to remind women that our bodies and the sexual fear with which we’ve been instilled since childhoodYou really want to have a word with your parents then.
-
MickGJ SpencertheHalfwitRecommend28
Things are becoming a little bit clearer after that throwaway remark.You really want to have a word with your parents then. -
Callacab MickGJRecommend13Things are becoming a little bit clearer after that throwaway remark.
Absolutely. I think we may have discovered what lies at the root of many of Jessica's articles.Anybody who - by their own admission - has had a lifelong fear of sexuality is very likely to take a less than relaxed view both of sex and of sexual imagery. I think we should have sympathy and understanding for such a person.It seems rather unfair to advocate censorship and restrictions on such imagery for the vast majority of people who HAVEN'T had a lifelong fear of sex, just because of your own personal issues though, however unfortunate they are.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:40pm -
-
4 people, 6 commentsRedTelecasterRecommend288do us all a favor and back away from the computer. Permanently.Funny... I was thinking the same about you.
-
Eupator RedTelecasterRecommend16Agreed. No one even comes on here to simply read the content of JV's articles any more - just to lay into her in the Comments Section regardless of what she's typed. Given the divisive and aggressive nature of many of her pieces this is fairly understandable.What I don't understand is how she doesn't see this herself. All she seems to do is perpetuate the problem and exacerbate people's attitudes towards feminism with vitriolic articles often condemning all men regardless of their background, attitudes etc.Emma Watson's speech espoused the inclusive approach that should be taken to dealing with the problem. Such an approach should be commended and encouraged.
-
RedTelecaster EupatorEmma Watson's speech espoused the inclusive approach that should be taken to dealing with the problemAbsolutely. I thought it was superb, and far more constructive than the divisive nature of articles we're often treated to here.What I don't understand is how she doesn't see this herselfThe problem is, we'll never know whether she does or not. Sometimes her position seems so deliberately one-sided and aggressive that I wonder whether it's just playing to her reputation and the pursuit of easy clicks.
-
tomsmells EupatorRegardless of their background?I refer you her article yesterday:Traditionally African American frats, gender-inclusive frats and multicultural frats are not as threatening as those populated by mostly-white, economically-entitled students, for exampleWhy does it not surprise me that Jessica Valenti asserts that with no evidence to support it?
Show 3 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:46pm -
-
2 people, 2 commentsRaniPilescuRecommend49Finding out that it was all part of a hoax, however, means He-for-She-gate is a full-blown meta-misogynist clusterfuck.Language!
-
Deviantinc RaniPilescuYou're right, meta-misogynist is a horrible phrase....I wouldn't say it means:He-for-She-gate is a full-blown meta-misogynist clusterfuckSo much as a 'full-blown meta-journalist -getting-taken-for-a-ride-by-a-hoax-less-believable-than-the-spaghetti-harvest clusterfuck'. Seriously, when I first read it I thought 'hoax'. Many commentators said 'it's 4CHAN, if they had pics they'd just publish, not put up some countdown'. Yeah, it's a pretty mean hoax, but the only coverage it should have received is 'look at this obvious hoax, how scared are they?!', or none at all...... don't feed the trolls, how many times do people need to be told....
-
-
10 people, 12 commentsBearWitnessRecommend106Author - You're not understanding 4chan.It's just their idea of an arch joke. Try and negate misogyny with misogyny? It's the kind of 'double irony' humour that they pride themselves on.You know they are laughing behind their keyboards at you right now.
-
SnowyJohn AlainfromFranceRecommend44It's not funny though, jokes should be funny.Tell that to Stewart Lee.
-
Karen Alexandra Peart BearWitnessI agree the layer of this likely to be missing is that the men behind this company turn out to be the very same 4chan users that are claiming this was an attack on them.
-
MickGJ Karen Alexandra PeartRecommend14
What makes you think they are men?the men behind this companyParticularly given that their main goal seems to be to censor the internet and prevent these sort of photo leaks. -
Phalanxia BearWitnessThe original trickster was clearly coaxing others, primarily other Anons, into a snafu (...), but the excitement 4chan had at the possibility of seeing nudes combined with their virulent anti-feminism means it can't really be dismissed as a joke.On the article though:>Though, if the threat had been directed at a woman other than the squeaky-clean young, white, former-Hermione, I’m not sure that would have inevitably been the case.You really just can't resist a dig, can you? This would have been a good article without the sneering contempt for Watson's success as an actor.
-
makeinstall AlainfromFrance@AlainfromFrance 25 September 2014 12:55pm.Jokes are funny. Its humour that requires to be consensual.
-
randomdave MickGJ'Particularly given that their main goal seems to be to censor the internet and prevent these sort of photo leaks.'That was Rantic Media who's founder is allegedly called Brad Cockingham. Except they don't exist and all their 'goals' were pure click bait nonsense.
Instead it's the work of a group of internet hoaxers called SocialVevo, whose motive is to capitalise on internet trends to gain page views. Click bait. That's all.
The thing Jessica misses by a mile is that all SocialVevo want is fame and reputation. They only used Ms Watson as a lure because of the previously leaked photo's. If they hadn't been leaked SocialVevo would be using beheading videos or some other topical heinous fuckery to generate page views.
This has got nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with not feeding the trolls. -
AlainfromFrance ID4784809Did it make you laugh? If so, would you care to explain why you found that funny?
Show 9 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 2:52pm -
IliketrafficlightsThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
5 people, 5 commentsJonAustinRecommend77Flogging a dead horse. Everyone thinks it is awful and inexcusable. You're a couple of days late on this.
-
Buckster69 JonAustinThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:32pm -
8 people, 9 commentsimperium3Recommend144I was actually quite enjoying this article until the patriarchal conspiracy undertones started piling up. Starting with the unsourced claim that the Rantic morons are entirely male, and going on from there.
-
peppermintish imperium3Recommend28There is a rather odd belief in feminism that women can't be sexist.
Show 6 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:36pm -
NIXXXXThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
CompleteJamesBluntRecommend100Interesting way of dealing with a "cravenly opportunistic move to gin up attention" - writing about it in a national newspaper! If the press hadn't picked up on 4Chan then none of us (or very few of us) would ever have heard about it. This is an excellent example of self-generating 'news': decide that a tedious story is worth elevating to headline status and then when it turns out to be complete nonsense, don't say "sorry for wasting your time with this bollox" but instead carry on writing about it because the fact that you brought the bl00dy thing to our attention in the first place has somehow become a story in itself.
-
7 people, 11 commentsAhBrightWingsRecommend72For once the contortions of the title:
are in keeping with the surreal nature of the issue. It's dizzy-making stuff.The Emma Watson nude photos threat was a hoax – but it was still a threat
Sexually threatening an outspoken woman to shine a light on how outspoken women are sexually threatened? That’s idioticThe closing paragraph:
would benefit from that simple torque that JV consistently refuses to make. How about changing "men" to "people"? After all, it turns out 4Chan was NOT responsible. How do we know that some of those involved with the various contortions weren't women using/abusing this platform to call attention to the issue, in which case we're in the terrain of a Trojan Horse or Machiavellian move...the belief that the ends --calling attention to how women are threatened (real and important)-- justify the means -- the faux threatening women (unethical)--?But to the men who decided Watson’s sense of safety was worth throwing to the internet wolves so long as it meant making a splash:..If nothing else, this has demonstrated that we all need to be more skeptical, and it highlights the urgent need for old-fashioned journalism based on fact-checking and real-time reporting. There are many lessons in this Tale of a Tube (apologies to Swift) and most of them go far beyond gender.-
mm1971 AhBrightWingsRecommend29totally agree - even where it is specifically in reference to males with Jessica it is always 'men this', 'men that' rather than 'some men' and it's actually pretty offensive and totally undermines her arguments about treating a gender (in her case) women in a particular way.I would like to see Jessica comment below the line, apologising and undertaking to specify 'some men' in her articles in future
-
Bjerkley mm1971It does seem, however, that those who are connected with the company that anyone is aware of are men. Not seen anyone purporting to be connected who is a woman.If she amended it to "some of the men" connected with the company, it would be an inaccurate statement as it's not possible to identify which of the men were for or against it or why. So men of the company works fine. -
imperium3 BjerkleyI dislike the way Jessica uses "men" like that though, as if the reason they did this is clearly because they are all male. If they turned out to all be African-American, would it be acceptable for JV to say things like:But to the black people who decided Watson’s sense of safety was worth throwing to the internet wolves so long as it meant making a splashAlso, as you say it's only an assumption that all of this company are men, it's probably true but we just don't know.
-
Dapperchap AhBrightWingsI would suggest that she was referencing one of the rules of the internet memes (rule 16), I believe that first appeared on 4chan or a similar sight in that ‘There Are No Girls On The Internet ‘. So it has to be men doing it.However that would imply she has done at least some cursory research.
Show 8 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:50pm -
-
4 people, 7 commentsBoxerSaysRecommend20I didnt think her speech was all that great.But we have seen an abominable display of misogyny as a result of it.
-
socialistnotnulabour BoxerSaysWell it turns out 4 men are behind this and they see themselves as a internet comedy performers.
So should they be allowed to do this as it could be considered art and freedom of expression?
Many on CIF seem to believe freedom of expression shouldn't be censored. -
BoxerSays socialistnotnulabourIts invasion of personal privacy and harassment of an individual, nothing like Exhibit B you faux socialist!
-
ribenaberry socialistnotnulabourThat's a bit of a leap. An art exhibition about slavery is not the same as threatening to publish the nude photos of a specific individual without their permission.As BoxerSays points out above, the art exhibition is not harrassing an individual, so you've come up with some sort of false equivalency here.
-
djdjango socialistnotnulabourThe Guardian gave a 5 star review and several positive articles to an exhibition of black people chained up in cages as a way of getting us to think about how awful it is to have once chained black people up in cages (or something).
-
socialistnotnulabour BoxerSaysWhat is harassment?Does pissing off a large amount of people with a crass and ill thought out display not count as a form oh harassment as well.The Emma Watson situation appears to be a crass and ill thought out attempt at highlighted misogyny if you believe the men behind it.Do you see why people need to be careful with their freedom of expression?I don't think you really understand socialism because it entails doing what is good for society.You should really be criticising both of these situations.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:47pm -
-
LongasyourarmRecommend22This makes for as much insight as using Aaron Rodgers as poste r boy for misogyny.
Nameless faceless idiots are easy to attack, and then you can generalize to "men". What a silly enterprise. -
4 people, 4 commentsStevenJ19Recommend62The third article on a nude photos hoax??The words 'priorities' and 'sorted' come to mind.
-
makeinstall StevenJ19@StevenJ19 25 September 2014 12:48pm.Should have worked it out from the level of Kate Bush worship that went on, that G will bleat on and on about what the flavour of the week is.
-
2 people, 2 comments
-
3 people, 3 commentsTheDogShoutererRecommend29
Again with this other version of oneself. TheDogShouterer 2.0, now with less misogyny and a bigger screen.consider becoming a more “true and complete version” of yourself. -
4 people, 6 commentsgraunddownRecommend95You have no idea if the people behind this are men or women. What we do know is that most of the comments in the media (such as yours) have made people aware of this when they wouldn't otherwise have been. You are doing more for their cause then most by linking to the page.Secondly, as ever, looking at the fringe and commenting on the whole is not a great way to build an argument. It's equivalent to confining yourself to an asylum to better understand society. It might be useful as part of broader research, but is in no way representative of the whole.This is why your piece on men discouraging rape is so offensive to many men. We do not endorse rape, by and large we do not like rape jokes, the vast majority of men loathe rapists. I understand that American society has broader and deeper fault lines than our own, but I suspect that the majority of American men (certainly the ones I know) feel as I do about this issue.The majority of the critical responses on here stem from that essential point of confusion. The people who comment in that way are not anti-equality, they're against further lines of division being drawn, against propagandist approaches, against dangerous calls for vigilantism, against being patronised and vilified.
-
leemarvinismyhero graunddownRecommend13consider becoming a more “true and complete version” of yourself. And if that completed guy is still an asshole, do us all a favor and back away from the computer. Permanently.Valenti is doing genuine feminism, the kind Watson talked about in her speech, no favors at all. When actual feminists attempt to argue with men as to why feminism is beneficial for women AND men, Valenti's articles are the sorta stuff that gets thrown back in their face.
-
dontshootme leemarvinismyheroAgreed. It's a bit like being against ISIS but not being in favour of Tony Blair's ground invasion. I am all for equality of opportunity, just not the narrow shrill finger-pointing kind that most of the Guardian feminist writers preach because it is not the solution and will not solve any real problems (domestic abuse, racial abuse, social injustice, discrimination, general misogyny/misandry).
-
DammYankee leemarvinismyheroSo you've never read any Valenti article where she's decided all men are evil and guilty?Try reading this one, and the one from yesterday where she deleted the comments en masse, or the "Men need to do more about rape" piece where her premise is that if we don't stop rapists we men are just as guilty as the rapists, and then you'll understand why she's derided by people BTL.
-
leemarvinismyhero DammYankeeEh I think you just did a "Valenti" (over-reacting without actually breathing). Try re-reading my comment again. You will see that is critical of her articles.
Show 3 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:51pm -
-
5 people, 9 comments
FFC800Recommend16Wait, some marketing company thought this was a good idea?I was basically ignoring this story as giving attention to 4chan trolling is always counterproductive, and there's no way you're going to clean up a cesspit of the internet to the point it doesn't perv over nudes of hot actresses, so there's just no point interacting with it.But deliberately hoax-threatening to leak images there for publicity? That's really dirty.You don't know that the people behind it are men, though.-
nevernomore1 FFC800Recommend15Indeed author comes across as highly sexist in assuming all behind this hoax are men, especially as the aim of this hoax was to get revenge on 4chan by getting it closed down for being the original source of where leaked images were posted.
-
SteveBiko187 nevernomore1the aim of this hoax was to get revenge on 4chanNo it wasn't The aim of the hoax was to get clicks on a website, and therefore advertising revenue.
-
ID5374758 BjerkleyNo one knows for sure who is behind it, although the only references I've seen to people connected are men.OK, but that still doesn't mean you (or Valenti) know that everyone at the company is a man. Or that it was a man that came up with the idea in the first place.So why so eager to pin this on one gender?
-
Bjerkley ID5374758I don't think there's any eagerness to do so. Based on the available information, from past focuses on this collective, there don't appear to be any references to women involved. That doesn't exclude the possibility that there isn't, but there's no basis to assume that there is and that it would be incorrect to refer to the gender of those that we do know are involved.I mean, I can see the objection sometimes to references to "men", but it doesn't seem in any way misplaced here.
-
ID5374758 BjerkleyI don't think there's any eagerness to do soExcept that JV has stated it without any evidence and now here's you BTL telling people that you've seen other journos also stating that the company employs exclusively men. Considering the ATL story is about the gullibility of journalists over this issue, I'm going to go ahead and say that every article you've read is as poorly sourced as this one.it would be incorrect to refer to the gender of those that we do know are involved.OK, so who do we know is involved? I've seen one name, which is male but obviously a pseudonym. So there's no evidence that either one man or a group of men is behind this.Rantic Media is not a real company. It's an anagram of Incite Drama. Any info we have about them is more than likely fake.
-
Bjerkley ID5374758now here's you BTL telling peopleBecause I bothered to read into, is all.I'm going to go ahead and say that every article you've read is as poorly sourced as this one.If you prefer to think that, sure. The ones I read though were not mere reporting on the Watson issue, but a detailed look prior to this as to who or what Social Vevo are. One journalist spoke to a man purporting to be an ex-representative, and whilst the names widely known are undoubtedly fake, it's considered that the main guy behind it, who has appeared in some of their videos, is in fact a man.Of course, it could be that this is an elaborate bluff and it's all the work of women, but there's only so far conspiracy theories can take us, as is the standard rubbishing of any piece of information.
-
ID5374758 BjerkleyThe ones I read though were not mere reporting on the Watson issue, but a detailed look prior to this as to who or what Social Vevo are.Link?Of course, it could be that this is an elaborate bluff and it's all the work of women, but there's only so far conspiracy theories can take us, as is the standard rubbishing of any piece of information.Except I'm not claiming it was women behind it. I'm saying that we - me, you and JV - don't know one way or the other. There is no information in this article to rubbish. To get information you need to do research, and JV seems allergic to that for some strange reason.
Show 6 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:55pm -
-
2 people, 2 commentspastisRecommend63The Guardian really has got itself tangled up in a riot of tittle-tattle on this one.
-
SolarDeathRayTower pastisRecommend23Nasty remarks about due diligence should be being made.The fact that the narrative has now gone to how the media is being "held hostage" by these scary-technologically-literate people, whose prank was made so very much easier by the Stockholm syndrome exhibited by those churnalists who were "held hostage" (i.e. by believing and reporting what they were told as fact without bothering to check/research anything) is somewhat telling.
-
-
6 people, 6 commentsJonathan ThorpeRecommend92meta-misogynistNew word! When you really can't get away with calling something misogynist, call it meta-misogynist. Nobody can argue against that because it's meta. A new step forward for feminism.
-
SolarDeathRayTower JahLionRecommend18I'd go for crypto-misogynist (for statements that aren't misogynistic in the slightest, but are made by people who are disapproved of by idiots who throw misogynist around as the pejorative adjective of choice).
-
FredinSpain JahLionPersonally I was quite happy to be called a Male Chauvinist Pig, it had a certain ring that misogynist just doesn't match.
-
CautiousOptimist Jonathan ThorpeThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Show 3 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:38pm -
thierrytt1This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
-
3 people, 3 commentsphilipphilip99This is like being in Tokyo and watching Godzilla and its latest enemy trash the place.
-
CordwainerBird philipphilip99Recommend10It's more like being in Nagoya and watching Tokyo being razed while thinking "I'm so glad it's not happening here."
-
fordassh philipphilip99Actually I'd say it's more like the exact opposite.We're not seeing some vast, big-scale epochal event here (like a mega-city being trashed by a gigantic radioactive mutant reptile).We're seeing something that is actually pretty obscure and has little impact on the outside world. This is the kind of "outrage" that will go almost completely unnoticed by most normal people in the outside world, and even the hardcore interent bloggy commentariat folk like ourslves will probably have forgotten about it by next week.In short, it's more like seing a fight between a spider and a fly. To the spirder and fly, it's a massive Big Deal. But no-one else really cares.
-
-
3 people, 3 commentsrealitybabesRecommend51a full-blown meta-misogynist clusterfuck
-- Nice.if the threat had been directed at a woman other than the squeaky-clean young, white, former-Hermione
-- Less nice.consider becoming a more “true and complete version” of yourself
-- Offensive and condescending.our bodies and the sexual fear with which we’ve been instilled since childhood
-- whiny generalizationIt's about resilience. Ascribing undue significance to a sexual incident you didn't like is a form of self-harm. There are plenty of women -- feminists -- who don't give a monkey's about this kind of unpleasant everyday misogyny. As victim-feminists will never manage to rewrite human biology, perhaps it's time they focused on finding the inner strength to sweep the trivial stuff away and get on with life. After all, a nude picture on the internet is not to be equated with rape. Dworkinism is not tenable.Of course, Watson is great and the 4chan bastards totally deserve to be punished.-
ID2939990 realitybabesIf this threat is nothing to do with 4chan, what are they being punished for again? Or was that just an easy attack to round out your post?I found it slightly jarring as I more or less agreed with everything else you were saying.
-
2 people, 2 commentsAhBrightWingsRecommend10This:
is exactly right. I'm tired of listening to tortured excuses for how these ironic technological "winks" and hi-jinks are supposedly in aid of some greater good.And what was this intended to prove (other than, perhaps, some nebulous point about the media’s gullibility)? We all already know that 4chan is a cesspool. Using their tactics is like throwing a bag of garbage into the dump: you’re just adding to the stink.That we can no longer simply and directly and clearly state what is wrong is a huge part of the problem.-
ID5374758 AhBrightWingsBut, in a way I'm not sure the perpetrators intended, the hoax has shown exactly how gullible and lazy our journalists are. Any one of the Graun journos that wrote about this could have done some research and found that it was a hoax - in fact there were comments BTL on the first article spelling out that it wasn't 4chan and there were no photos.It's easier to take a story directly from the internet and run with it, despite its veracity (or lack thereof). A very sad state of affairs, and none of these ill informed hacks have even offered to apologise for getting it so wrong.
-
-
SolarDeathRayTowerJust as a matter of curiosity isn't the transmission of a threatening message a criminal offence in the US (assuming that they are from the US)?
-
4 people, 7 commentsMyPoorEarRecommend53Do we know that the organization is exclusively male? Or even more than one person? The story linked even says ‘all of the SocialVEVO associates I chatted with on Skype could be the same person’.Excuse the impertinence of asking for facts to be checked, it’s just that this is the same writer who recently wrote an article about how ‘male razors are not subject to VAT’, despite this being untrue, easily checked, and not to mention a bizarre gendering of a unisex product. So it wouldn’t be the first time the entire premise of her article has been false.
-
ribenaberry MyPoorEarAs a feminist I try to fight for not only the more serious issues such as domestic abuse, rape, FGM, but also the everyday issues women face. Catcalling, groping, sexism in the workplace etc.I have to say though the price of razors is not something that I have never considered sexist, writing about it is a load of fucking nonsense and I consider embarrassing to the cause of feminism.
-
ID5374758 ribenaberryAs a feminist I try to fight for not only the more serious issues such as domestic abuse, rape, FGMAre you sure you mean that you fight for those things?
-
ribenaberry ID5374758Oops, typo. Well spotted!No of course I meant against. I could be displaying some subconscious internalised sexism of course ;)
-
ID5374758 ribenaberryThat damn patriarchy. You think you've got away from it, then you find out it was inside you all along.
Show 4 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:38pm -
5 people, 5 commentsbumrushererWell said. Ofcourse the hoax isn't as bad but it is still on the side of things that probably aren't looking clean at the moment.The debate about whether Hermoine should be the media face of this cause needs to be introduced though...IMO.
-
Guardian contributor
Rotwatcher bumrushererRecommend18You do know that Hermione Granger is a fictional character, portrayed by the real life human actress Emma Watson? -
kontiki RotwatcherRecommend17Although Hermione Granger is arguably a better feminist role model than Emma Watson.
-
awesomeants RotwatcherOh yeah, sure, go ahead and spoil it for everyone! Let me guess, Santa isn't real is he? ;)
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 1:44pm -
-
Bond0815Recommend30The one maybe-bright spot in this week-long Watson scandal is that clearly vitriolic sexism is finally seen as an outrageFinally? Last time I checked the Internet age has spawned a full fledged outrage industry for years now.It never been so easy to claim to be deeply offended by some stupidity someone published anonymously than ever before.And then the media comes in an keeps the outrage pot stirring and reports about the reaction to it - whether it is true, a stupid joke or a hoax, doesnt matter in the end.Clicks have been earned and political talking points repeated nontheless.
-
Jonathan ThorpeRecommend21Sexual harassment and online threats against women aren’t something to joke about or try out in service of some imagined greater good: believe me, no good came of this.Leah Green believes, as you do I would imagine, that it is something to try out when the harassment is against men though. I seem to remember that 'Get your arse out, mate' video. Go gender equality.
-
3 people, 3 commentsLiquidRayRecommend41Enough already. There are millions of women suffering appalling oppression in third world and/or at the hands of religious fundamentalists yet The Guardian have published nearly ten articles in the last day on a hoax perpetrated at a celebrity.
-
Rotwatcher LiquidRayYes, because celebrities deserve everything they have coming to them. How dare they be well-known, the bastards.
-
MyPoorEar RotwatcherRecommend23I don’t think anyone’s saying it’s right, they’re just calling for perspective. This article, for instance, is basically one person arguing at another in a national newspaper.
-
-
3 people, 3 commentssmugtory'And if that completed guy is still an asshole, do us all a favor and back away from the computer. Permanently.'As my old fella used to say 'There are two types of men in this world, ones who masturbate and liars' and I'm not a liar.The Scandinavians are light years ahead of us with their attitude to the human body. When will we stop considering the 'naughty bits' as some how sinful and must remain covered lest they corrupt and deprave.
-
thierrytt1 smugtoryAnd there are two types of women in this world . Ones who masturbate and the others are liars.
-
JohnNMIWelsh smugtoryAs my old fella used to say 'There are two types of men in this world, ones who masturbate and liars' and I'm not a liar.I think most men's old fellas are probably pro-masturbation.
-
-
Philip RoseMaybe secretly people didn't want this to be a hoax? If it had been real, the Press would have had a lot more histrionics to fill their pages and there would have been a lot of repeat outrage to keep people busy. Now it's a hoax, it's just highlighted the flaws in poor reporting and the willingness of fools to believe anything they hear.
But it's a bit of a win-win - news that was briefly shown by a few papers (mostly on the entertainment pages as an excuse to show pics of Ms Watson) has now hit the front page, 4Chan have got even more attention and will be laughing their heads off, papers get the chance to fill even more space.
Does anyone seriously think that photos would have been released after a countdown to a specific time on a website? I would be more worried that the cops did nothing to investigate sooner. Meanwhile other much worse websites are ignored - probably because they don't feature celebs. -
2 people, 2 commentsBlackberryBlossomRecommend24It demonstrates how dignified Emma Watson herself is that she neither gave in to internet bullying; nor responded to the hoax the way that the Guardian's various authors have done. Instead, she just got on with things. It is the media which above anyone else uses "women’s bodies and fear and sexuality to make money". Food for thought there.I hadn't really thought much of Watson previously, but she is evidently a good, eloquent, and thoughtful person. She deserves to be listened to; and her campaign is a smart, positive one, which really might help make society a better place.
-
JonPurrtree BlackberryBlossomRecommend10She perhaps doesn't have an iphone, knows how to use one, has never taken a photo of herself nude.On the other hand she might not really care (or is just mildly embarrassed) if a nude photograph of her leaks out.
-
-
4 people, 5 commentsPoorButNotAChavRecommend81Sexually threatening an outspoken woman to shine a light on how outspoken women are sexually threatened? That’s idiotic (from subheader)It is.sexually threatening an outspoken woman to shine a light on how outspoken women are sexually threatened – well, that’s idiotic at best. The Emma Watson hoax was a cravenly opportunistic move to gin up attention using a real issue, a real woman and real fear that women and marginalized groups across the internet face constantly. That’s not marketing or consciousness-raising: it’s harassment. (Jessica Valenti)Absolutely.And what was this intended to prove (other than, perhaps, some nebulous point about the media’s gullibility)? (Jessica Valenti)Good question.The Rantic “firm” of men didn’t actually believe that women would be grateful, or that they were doing anything to further the conversation about misogyny online, nor about social media threats or celebrity privacy. The supposed hoaxers just wanted their 15 minutes, their 140 characters. (Jessica Valenti)True.Sexual harassment and online threats against women aren’t something to joke about or try out in service of some imagined greater good: believe me, no good came of this. (Jessica Valenti)I believe it.So now you've used your position as a Guardian columnist to declare that the Emma Watson nude photos stunt was idiotic, cynical and irresponsible perhaps we could have a similar condemnation of the recent stunt in which a woman wearing a hidden camera filmed herself harassing men chosen at random and then uploaded the video to a website and claimed she was fighting sexism. Who would do that sort of thing and why would they do it?The Guardian did it.Why did they do it? Perhaps it was...As a way to drum up traffic. (Jessica Valenti)
-
ScalesOfJustice PoorButNotAChavThe parallel with the Everyday Sexism video would have been if these internet pranksters had threatend Ban Ki Moon - the UN secretary general - with a nude photos leak, rather than Emma Watson.Can you see how the media reaction to that threat would have been different to the threat that was made, and how that would have made a more powerful point?
-
PoorButNotAChav ScalesOfJusticeThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Show 2 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:42pm -
6 people, 6 commentsnutbuttersRecommend32I don't think I've ever commented on one of Jessica Valenti's pieces but I feel the time has come to do so:Before I start, I think Emma Watson's campaign is well thought-out and it's inclusiveness is it's main strength. Men are also victims of gender stereotyping and sexism isn't exclusive to women. This campaign manages to encapsulate that excellently in a way that others have failed.
However, I can't help but feel that Valenti, who gets quite a lot of grief in the comments sections of her articles, is some how externalising her own personal experience of being a "feminist" writer. Where Valenti fails, however, is where her articles give off a distinct vibe of "us vs them" which alienates people who would ordinarily be sympathetic to her cause. Some of the criticisms of her will inevitably cross the line due to the subject matter and the types of people that will be attracted to such an article, but she should remember that much of the criticism that goes her way is from people who don't think she writes very well and doesn't do an awful lot to advance her cause.It should be noted that after two reads of this article, I'm still yet to find any reference to the substance of Watson's speech and it's inclusiveness of BOTH sexes that was so wonderfully articulated the other day by Owen Jones in another Guardian article.-
Luminaire nutbuttersRecommend11Couldn't have (and indeed already haven't) put it better myself - round of applause.This article fails quite badly in helping to advance the cause of identifying real bigots as individuals and forcing them out of the nice protective cloak that the 'us vs them' framing provides them with.It's a step backwards, whereas Watson's campaign is a huge step forwards.
-
SolarDeathRayTower nutbuttersI think that EW's speech certainly was well thought-out and inclusive, however the campaign that it supports isn't quite as inclusive in the scope of people that it is trying to protect from violence and discrimination. To quote the commitment that it asks for:Gender equality is not only a women’s issue, it is a human rights issue that requires my participation. I commit to take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls.
It's an awful lot more inclusive than (for example) posting a picture of yourself posing in an "I bathe in male tears" t-shirt, but there is a distinct difference between the speech (which was presumably written by Watson) and the website (which presumably wasn't).As to the speech itself, it is perhaps telling that I finished up reading a transcript in the Australian media instead of the UK. -
CharlesCU nutbuttersRecommend12Very well put and it's a repeated pattern with Valenti and her one-theme series. Her writing is exclusive and seeks to create a divide predicated on the notion that either you're a feminist or a misogynist. There is no inclusive middle ground of mutual acceptance and shared pursuit.Her style is aggressive, but the irony of an article like this is that it shines more light on the perpetrators of the hoax than on the wortginess of EW's campaign.Maybe a re-focusing of priorities would bring an over-due refreshment to this writer's predictable output.
-
DanteMeetsBosch nutbuttersVery well put.The Us vs Them approach is very damaging. It only serves to divide people and start a cycle of self-perceived victimhood. Many of Jessica Valenti's articles make extreme suggestions, such as banning fraternities, that are based on very flimsy evidence, and it's all apparently written in the name of fighting patriarchy. When people BTL make calm and reasonsed criticisms of the pieces, they are still portrayed in some quarters as people being hostile to women, rather than hostile to the article. That then leads people like Valenti to feel that they are under attack and that they are fighting the good fight in their brave struggle, when in fact they are the sowers of the seeds of discord.
-
son_of_kins nutbuttersThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Show 3 more replies Last reply: 25 September 2014 3:47pm -
-
2 people, 2 commentsWonhandTideThe whole celebrity hacked debate is a wonky inconsistent mess. Hard to defend and hard to condone. Riven with inconsistencies around fame, feminism, porn, 'feminist' porn and a degree of having one's cake on all sides.
-
colddebtmountainThough, if the threat had been directed at a woman other than the squeaky-clean young, white, former-Hermione, I’m not sure that would have inevitably been the case.This will surely win you a prize for patronage Ms Valenti....
-
LuminaireRecommend42Sounds like the author didn't learn anything from Emma's speech whatsoever.
A bit of wounded journalistic pride and it's straight back to bigotry and trying to draw the dividing line between genders again - exactly what Emma Watson's speech was trying to get away from.Owen Jones' comment piece contributed far more to advancing the debate and that was even before the hoax became apparent. -
RotwatcherRecommend14marketering?... gin up ...?Everyone loves a sex scandal! – but that’s only true if you’re not the one being attacked, or you’ll never be the one being attacked.I don't love a sex scandal, so please desist from co-opting me without my consent.
-
3 people, 3 commentsStVitusGerulaitisRecommend39The only thing Emma Watson’s harassers achieved was to remind women that our bodies and the sexual fear with which we’ve been instilled since childhood are usable as a joke. As a way to drum up traffic.Well I do hope that drumming up traffic is working for the Guardian, because this is maybe the fourth article on this so far.
-
AntiTerrorist StVitusGerulaitisYes, that has stood out for me as well. The guardian had no problem reporting the story, albeit from a look at the sun reporting this story, complete with the Front page photo from the Sun.Surely the best way to take the wind out of the sails of this sort of thing is not to report it at all.Farbeit from me to say, but surely the guardian is profiting from this just as much as the Sun at al?
-
Trombolan StVitusGerulaitisOnly fourth?And reminder, it is the evil people behind the hoax that drive the attention away from the speech :^)
-
-
StaringattheSeaHands up all posters who have responded to all the articles so far to say they are vacuous.
-
2 people, 2 comments
-
krudler_uk boynamedstuI've actually been the victim of seagulling. By a bunch of seagulls. What a stink.
-
-
WurzelGummidgeIn a world where the likes of Andrew Marr is sent abuse after having a stroke why are people suprised that Emma Watson would become a target for daring to speak her mind?Spend some time on Xbox live and you will here sexist and racist abuse that is vile.I am sure everyone would prefer it if everyone was nice but with no moderation people are free to say what they like and the outraged continue to feed the trolls.The only good to come out of this mess is that more people heard about the original speech which few would disagree with.
-
brookerfanRecommend11I think its safe to say that anything with the words "Emma Watson nude photos threat hoax" is google clickbait gold !
Extra doubleplusgood points if you get a massive pic of said actress on front page all day. A Wednesday perhaps..... -
JonPurrtreeThe threat seems pretty empty anyway.
If some daft hacker has a nude photo of a celeb, they will pass it around sooner or later. -
AlanTyndallRecommend13Does anyone think the author realises the irony of disparagingly speaking about a hoax which now seems to be for the purposes of clickbait?
-
JasonMasson1Recommend10What this article is covering up with some silly rhetoric ("sexually threatening") is that many "socially conscious" women (especially in the acting profession) have career ladder-climbing baggage in the form of nude photos etc. Before discovering brains and "courage," they used other attributes available to them to get ahead.
-
randomblokeThis comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Open for comments. Sign in
or create your Guardian account
to join the discussion.
-
Watch our new ad and answer a question to be in with the chance of winning an iPad with one year subscription to the Guardian and Observer daily edition app.
Enter now
Today's best video
-
Why you must see this Spandau Ballet documentary
Andrew Pulver explains why George Hencken's documentary about the New Romantic pop stars is well worth your time41 comments -
Kwabs shows us round his home and performs Walk
Soul singer shows us his home in London and sings a song in his front room -
Emma Watson's UN speech
Actor launches HeForShe campaign by inviting men to join the fight for equality -
UN general assembly's greatest hits
Julian Borger looks back at the institution's most memorable moments18 comments
The Guardian's
online dating site
online dating site
-
Guardian Membership brings you closer to the stories of the day and connects you to the conversations that matter.
Find out more from Alan
On Comment is free
Last 24 hours
-
1. First Dog on the Moon on ... Isis's letter to the west - cartoon
- 2. Why creationism matters – and irks so many people | Andrew Brown
- 3. The Great Naked Celebrity Photo Leak of 2014 is just the beginning | Roxane Gay
- 4. Frat brothers rape 300% more. One in 5 women is sexually assaulted on campus. Should we ban frats? | Jessica Valenti
- 5. Richard Branson’s ‘unlimited holiday’ sounds great – until you think about it | Anne Perkins
- More most viewed
Last 24 hours
-
1. I blocked a coal train to protest against Britain’s addiction to this dirty fuel | Will McCallum
- 2. Panic over Ukip has spread to Labour | Rafael Behr
- 3. I’m 16. Let me vote | Emma Jacobs
- 4. Conference convinced me that Labour can rescue the NHS – and our nation | Harry Leslie Smith
- 5. When talking about your problems actually makes them worse | Philippa Perry
- All today's stories
This week's bestsellers
-
1. This Changes Everything
by Naomi Klein £13.50 -
2.
Plenty More
by Yotam Ottolenghi £17.00
-
3.
For Who the Bell Tolls
by David Marsh £5.99
-
4.
Private Island: Why Britain Now Belongs to Someone Else
by James Meek £10.39
-
5.
Establishment
by Owen Jones £11.99
Search the Guardian bookshop
Latest posts
-
13min ago
Inhabiting an ‘evil’ role can be stressful, but it also helps foster compassion
Alex Andreou: Jamie Dornan’s fear over playing a serial killer in The Fall is understandable – I too have experienced what can be a highly unpleasant process 28 comments -
29min ago
Ideas for 25-26 September
Post your suggestions for subjects you'd like us to cover on Comment is free265 comments
Comment from the paper
-
Latest posts
-
13min ago
Inhabiting an ‘evil’ role can be stressful, but it also helps foster compassion
Alex Andreou: Jamie Dornan’s fear over playing a serial killer in The Fall is understandable – I too have experienced what can be a highly unpleasant process 28 comments -
29min ago
Ideas for 25-26 September
Post your suggestions for subjects you'd like us to cover on Comment is free265 comments
Comment from the paper
-
Latest posts
-
13min ago
Inhabiting an ‘evil’ role can be stressful, but it also helps foster compassion
Miliband can fudge foreign policy now, but not as PM -
Steve Bell: Steve Bell on Ed Miliband – cartoon
-
Priyamvada Gopal: India’s Mars mission could be a giant leap
Find the latest jobs in your sector: -
More from Jessica Valenti column
Daily commentary on feminism, politics, culture and more from Jessica Valenti
Follow her on Twitter @JessicaValenti-
Previous:
- License/buy our content |
- Privacy policy |
- Terms & conditions |
- Advertising guide |
- Accessibility |
- A-Z index |
- Inside the Guardian blog |
- About us |
- Work for us |
- Join our dating site today
- © 2014 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Send to a friend
Share
Short link for this page: http://gu.com/p/4xpj5Contact us
- Report errors or inaccuracies: userhelp@theguardian.com
- Letters for publication should be sent to: guardian.letters@theguardian.com
- If you need help using the site: userhelp@theguardian.com
-
Call the main Guardian and Observer switchboard:
+44 (0)20 3353 2000
Close -