Why does the title need to be worded like that? The worst part is that I’ve only seen them phrased like this with women celebrities.
You must log in or register to comment.
This “shaming” or the “shit storm” is usually (and I think here too) just some Incels commenting on Instagram. As Instagram optimizes for maximum engagement, the stupidest and most controversial take is always at the top of the comments, that’s how we end up with these idiots getting their platform. And these “news sites” then make a big deal out of a few losers also as engagement bait. This whole system is fucked
I’m guessing you have not been alive long enough to remember that newspapers, especially tabloids, have always been demeaning of women. To be honest I think headline is timid sounding compared to twenty years ago, when tabloids were more popular and running sensationalist headlines, and the picture of the person being always the most unflattering. I don’t really see that kind of reporting nowadays, but it is now on social media where sensationalist shaming happens.
That’s disgusting! Where?
Florence Pugh has never been shy about her body.
demeaning? maybe. but like they say, any exposure is good exposure. would mind seeing her exposed either
I wish we had more actresses with muscles. Imagine a wonder woman movie where wonder woman actually looks like an Amazon who has been working out all day every day for decades
As opposed to a zionist
Oh god, not everything has to loop back to this
Good Evening Sir, Welcome to Lemmy. We dont do escapism or banter here. Please feel free to enjoy any of our flavours of outrage. The “software privacy” is quite popular, we are quite well known for billionaires and capitalism, of course we do a range of modern outrage classics including American politics, environmental issues and American healthcare which let me assure you isnt just for our American customers.
The specials board currently contains a lovely selection of Shit Israel has done, Shit Musk has done and Companies making money off advertisements hate you blocking advertisements.
Can I start you off with some I dont own games I buy on Steam! or perhaps some advice on why Linux is superior to literally everything.
In a just world the publisher of this article would need to submit for anti-misogynist reeducation.
The whole article is almost certainly demeaning, as you would expect of a celebrity gossip rag.
The correct answer is to block that news site or whatever they call themselves, and don’t give them clicks.
Target is both to hit your sense of justice (I’m a male feminist) but also engage the innate urge to see the photos. Example
Anne Hathaway criticized by chauvinists for being too sexy on the red carpet
Oh wow, I hate sexism so much I better check out these photos!! so I can…support women?
It CAN work for men but is usually not demeaning. Chris Pratt went from adorable pudge to sexy muscleman, click here to see him shirtless! Not the same I guess.
My instinct would be to click just to find out what exactly is “too sexy” for chauvinists. Same logic applies to the original post’s article I guess.
I think these articles exploit this instinct. And I’m pretty sure it works for all kinds of people. When you put an opinion piece in some other people’s mouth, everyone will want to find out if the opinion makes sense to them or if it’s completely outrageous.
“Some people said this about this subject, come judge by yourself (and prove them wrong/right)”
It’s clickbait. The fact that the clickbait is demeaning is incidental. They’re maximizing whatever sensational clickbait title they can get. At least their heart isn’t intentionally evil, just incidentally evil.
It’s actually kind of perfect ragebait, because you’ll both get a bunch of people going “OMG!!! She’s beautiful! How dare you, you monster 😭😭😭” AND people going “She should be hotter, what a bitch!” with a single headline.
Then there are guys like me who are like… “I want to see this mini dress!”
And a bunch of people saying “OMG, it’s Florence Pugh …… and she’s even fitter !!!”
(I assume, but not taking the bait)
At least it contains the word “shamed”. Shaming someone is usually seen as unfair and judgmental.
Imo the article writers probably feel that they are decrying the way people are demeaning her, but it’s just adding visibility for the judgemental.
It’s a double edged sword. Everybody’s got a different line for when something descriptive inadvertently becomes prescriptive
I don’t know what this article is about, and I’d rather not engage with this segment of society to find out, but from a quick Google images search it seems like she recently (?) caught flack for a Valentino dress, which was very sheer and through which her nipples could be seen. But anyone who’s been paying any attention to fashion at all would know that sheer is very much “in”. The latest Yves Saint Laurent line is a prime example of this. As for the quality of her body, which seems to be an unusually frequent topic, why’s it anyone’s business? Can a woman exist anywhere on this planet and not be objectified and scrutinized like livestock?
I think it would be best if they drew attention to the people who are being horrible, instead of repeating the horrible things they said. So yeah, you’re not wrong for thinking this is demeaning.
Every time those perfect faces or perfect bodies are projected into media, it demeans us all.
