Emily Ratajkowski will grace the cover of Cosmopolitan's November issue. Her movie "Gone Girl" premiers in theaters this Friday, October 3rd, 2014 - a role that she acquired by appearing in Robin Thicke's, Blurred Lines music video in which she did not speak a word.
In her interview with Cosmo Ratajkowski says, "I feel lucky to wear what I want, sleep with whom I want, and dance how I want, and still be a feminist." Amen to that. However, I have some mild reservations.
There's no denying that feminism is very in vogue right now. The word feminist is being used as a powerful marketing tool to sell clothing, records, and now magazines. Somehow I'm not convinced that the sudden reclaiming of the F-word is genuine.
Ratajkowski can call herself a feminist all she wants, but having her claim to fame as a naked woman dancing around fully clothed men in a music video that glosses over consent is not a great platform to build off of.
Commercializing your body and exploiting your sexuality to sell products is not a new concept. It certainly is not helping women gain equal rights. That being said, I'm not trying to take away her feminist card. I believe that any women who wants to be afforded the same rights as men is by definition a feminist. Like Lena Dunham recently said, "A huge part of being a feminist is giving other women the freedom to make choices you might not necessarily make yourself." However, I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the message she's sending.
What happens when the nude model in the music video doesn't think the video is objectifying, but other women do? If the viewer objectifies a woman, but she isn't objectifying herself, is she still an object? If a tree falls in the woods, but it doesn’t hear its own sound, did it make one?
I'm very eager to read this interview - coming to newsstands October 7th.