Doctor Who's Jodie Whittaker: Nude Photos, The Sun and Mail Online (throw them in the sea)

 This is by no means the first time the Fail and the Scum have been misogynistic shits, objectifying and demonising women. And this is by no means the first time, nor will it be the last, that celebrity women have been shamed for nude photographs or scenes in their work, as I've covered before with the 'scandal' around Emma Watson's beautiful pictures in Vanity Fair. They try to portray women's bodies as something dirty, something shameful, but at the same time something that men are entitled to objectify, ogle, and get gratification from.

 I was utterly speechless when Jodie Whittaker was announced as the thirteenth Doctor. I was sitting in the bedroom on my DS, running through Pokemon X again and trying to complete my Pokedex when Paul called me into the living room. I'd lost track of the time and didn't realise the announcement was coming up, so when I saw the video... I couldn't even make words, I just couldn't. I was so, so happy. I can't wait for Whittaker's first episode. And how do these publications mark such a landmark announcement? Well of course by making it all about her body, her appearance, and her value as a sexual object. They same way they mark any achievement by a woman.

 Needless to say I'm absolutely foaming about this. What the genuine fuck? For all the supposed 'paedo hunting' the S*n like to think they do, they are now sexualising not only the idea of nudity to children through this, but an iconic children's television character. And what message does this send to the young women who watch Doctor Who? It tells them to be ashamed of their bodies, ashamed of nudity, and that they only exist for men's gratification - if they meet the unrealistic standards that these media outlets set for them to be measured against.

But think of it this way: during his time as the Doctor, Matt Smith appeared in the BBC adaptation of Christopher Isherwood's autobiography Goodbye to Berlin called 'Christopher and His Kind'. If you haven't seen or read it then I implore you to do so; you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll beg for more. It chronicle's Isherwood's time (played by Matt Smith) in the heydey of Weimar Berlin's underground gay scene, amidst the rise of the Nazi Party. It's both heartbreaking and heartwarming. During the filming of the sex scenes, the BBC implored director Geoffrey Sax that they had to be careful not to show shots of Smith's bare behind, as they couldn't show the Doctor's arse on telly. Sad, yes, but fair enough. They managed perfectly without doing so, despite the fact Smith has a glorious arse. Starring in not only nude scenes, but gay sex scenes. The tabloids could've had a field day with it but didn't, just a small article here or there. And I'm glad they didn't, it would've been a total violation of Smith's role, trying to slander and scapegoat him for playing an such an iconic role. It would be a betrayal of Isherwood's literary legacy, reducing his life and work to nothing more than a sex scene. So why are they doing the same to Whittaker? 

 Oh yeah, because they're misogynistic pieces of shit who don't believe women exist for any reason other than to be sexualised and objectified. By men. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity, but the way they portray it in the press is sickening. So the next time you see a copy of the Daily Hate Mail or the Scum, do the world a favour and chuck them in the bloody sea along with anybody who reads it.

Emma Watson Topless Picture Scandal!?! ...Calm the Fuck Down

 So I read on the Independent today that people are kicking off about Emma Watson's allegedly topless pictures in Vanity Fair. Apparently this is sparking feminist debate. Surely as a Harry Potter fan and a feminist I should be drawing up an angry placard and protesting outside of her house about now, right!? But really... What's the big deal? Let me break this down:

 Firstly, countless female celebrities have posed topless for some publication or another, and when has the media ever prompted us as feminists to take up our pitchforks (or broomsticks, your choice)  to go and be annoyed at them? None that I can recall. 

 It is precisely the tabloid type newspapers now that are telling us we should be angry at Watson - read: The S*n and the Daily HateMail - that when she was still a teenage posted news stories about alleged topless pictures that turned out to be photoshopped. I really hope that they can see their own hypocrisy in this. Then again, right-wing tabloids admitting they're wrong... I don't think they have a font size small enough for that yet. The Scum for example ran a piece many years ago which was a countdown to her 16th birthday and therefore legal, so their editorial team could perv over her in print without public outcry. At the same time however, it is the same publications which are crying "child star turned harlot!!". So... In other words you're quite happy to sexualise her as a child, but when it comes to her trying to express her sexuality as an adult woman you're outraged? Am I right? Yeah... Just a little fucked up. 

 Secondly it's that whole rhetoric that because she was a child star for one generation she should therefore find one thing and stick to it, for news purposes. In this case she has chosen to be a feminist, so she can't appear in any sort of 'sexual' way in the media. Who are they to say that the two are mutually exclusive? Hell, I'm a fierce-as-fuck-feminist who does burlesque on a weekly basis (a post on this is to come!), and who is the Daily Fail to say I can't shake my tits on stage and still be a feminist? While they were so excited for the countdown for her to be legal, they are the same ones now chastising her for being "too adult". Sooo... They were happy to sexualise her when she was a child, but are outraged and try to infantilise her as an adult? I'm not the only one who thinks that's a little fucked up, am I?

 And finally, yes, out of curiosity I looked up the pictures. What can I say? BUT! If you look at the rest of the photos from the shoot then you'll realise that it's a transitional piece; mimicking basically what I said above: her transition from child star to leading woman. A child to a woman. Celebrating it not in the way that scummy tabloids chose to but in her own way, using her body as a canvas in the process. Plus! Once again in that photo shoot I spotted a topless man twice! Where is the outrage over this dude who was probably a kid once, posing for a picture without a vest on? Disgraceful!! If MRAs want something to complain about then here it is: why is nobody protesting about that poor man being photographed topless, the objectification of men, showing more nipple, won't somebody think of the children!? 

 Yes, this is exactly how the tabloids complaining about these pictures sound to me, and hopefully you. So to sum up: nice tits, Granger, you look lush*; and please find another scapegoat tabloids. Maybe research into everybody who has ever voiced a role in a Disney film to see what they have ever done to maybe corrupt the kiddies.

*I hope all of you will realise that I mean this in an entirely Geordie and friendships of women way mean. I do not mean 'nice tits' in an objectifying way, bit in a "lady, I love you so much and you look like a Goddess" way. As she played the role of somebody so significant to my formative years I feel a rather close bond with Emma, and like to think that in some way - as a fellow badass woman she may be some sort of friend**.

** Yes, yes, okay; I sound like a creepy stalker. What I mean is that I didn't have many friends as child so I made friends with my books. Happy now!? Jeez, you guys are dickeads.