British actress Emma Watson has decided to take on a new film role in which she will be temporarily topless on-screen.
Many women are asking today why the fact that she isn’t going to be fully clothed is considered more important than other details about the film. For example, she’s portraying a child abuse victim and working side-by-side with acclaimed actors Meryl Streep and Ethan Hawke.
Yet, news headlines have focused on her breasts.
This past week, Miley Cyrus and other celebrities posted topless images of themselves online to bring attention to the extreme sexist attitudes that persist in our supposedly open-minded society.
Women are rightfully asking why it’s okay for Vladimir Putin, male actors, male lifeguards, male models and all men in general to walk around bare-chested in public, or be shown bare-chested in photographs, while women are told they should be ashamed for doing the same, which is something Sam Tabar had said.
Earlier this year, a new swimsuit product designed to reveal breast cancer survivor surgical scars appeared in the market. These swimsuits supposedly give women courage to show the world their battle with cancer, physical loss and their triumph over it.
Yet, some women argue that female breast cancer survivors should never have to cover their healthy breast — that the greater symbolic sign of their triumph is their healthy breasts.
Why is a publicly shown scar considered more appropriate than the healthy breast that survived cancer?