Piers Morgan is no sexist, he just tells the truth in a very messed-up way – The Sun
PIERS Morgan found himself in yet another sexism storm this week after describing Laura Tobin’s outfit on GMB as “skintight hotpants” she wore “deliberately to get people to notice”.
While co-presenter Susanna Reid chastised him for “objectifying” his colleague, the meteorologist herself appeared unbothered. Twitter, predictably, was outraged.
The next day, when Laura was discussing the response to 'trouser-gate', Piers cut her off, and moved on to the next segment.
Was it rude? Quite. Was it sexist? No, not necessarily.
He’s presenting the show. She’s going off on a tangent. He cuts men off with equal glee. It’s not automatically sexist for a man to cut a woman off – although of course, it often is.
It’s also not automatically sexist to comment on a woman’s appearance – although again, it often is.
Red leather trousers are attention-grabbing. They were fairly figure-hugging. Tobin did look gorgeous.
In this case, Piers' crime is inappropriateness in the workplace, rather than anti-feminist bile.
Piers has, in his career, made outrageous comments about feminism, sexism, racial issues, trans people and non-binary identification, to name a few.
But the key is in the adjective: outrage. That’s what he thrives off.
Professional provocateur? Yes. Bit of a dinosaur? Unquestionably. But a true sexist? I doubt that very much.
In fact, I believe Piers could be a powerful ally – if he would only stop playing the jester.
Most of his gaffes stem not from his opinions, but from the fact that he airs them without seeming to pause for breath, commenting on what he has no place to.
But since he does, and will – until society stops rewarding him for it – we shouldn’t give him the cross clapback he so enjoys.
Because like it or not, huge numbers of people do listen to him – and agree.
So I’m going to try and educate him. Without further ado, here’s a list of times Morgan’s found himself in hot water by opening his big mouth on feminism, and a helpful guide to what he probably meant (and should have said).
Emily Ratajkowski: 'Dumb and self-promoting'
This week, 25 old white men voted to ban abortion in Alabama even in cases of incest and rape. These men in power are imposing their wills onto the bodies of women in order to uphold the patriarchy and perpetuate the industrial prison complex by preventing women of low economic opportunity the right to choose to not reproduce. The states trying to ban abortion are the states that have the highest proportions of black women living there. This is about class and race and is a direct attack on the fundamental human rights women in the US deserve and are protected by under Roe vs. Wade. Our bodies, our choice.
A post shared byEmily Ratajkowski (@emrata) on
When model Emily Ratajkowski posted a naked photo of herself on Instagram protesting against the abortion ban in Alabama, Piers captioned it and tweeted: “Right message, ruined by such a dumb self-promoting photo.”
Rude? Absolutely. And given that Emily's message was about women’s freedom and autonomy over their bodies, it wasn’t Piers' place to comment at all. But was he wrong?
What everyone else said
Kylie Jenner told her followers that the new law made her "sick”, while Bella Thorne also posed in a bikini for an Instagram shot to share a similar message to Ratajkowski. The photo also garnered massive amounts of supportive comments.
However, many social media comments also branded the photo “unnecessary” and “attention-seeking”.
What Piers probably meant (and should have said)
“I applaud you in using your enormous platform and privilege to take a stand against the roll-back on reproductive rights of women in America, and such a flagrant violation of Roe v Wade.
“This issue is of course bound to the female body, but your provocative and hypersexualised selfie might serve as a distraction. It might even appear narcissistic. Perhaps share a photo of Gerri Santoro next time.”
Emma Watson: 'Miserable… needs a good meal'
Juliet is a paradox. She’s incredibly innocent and that innocence gives her strength and wisdom. @emmawatson Who is your Juliet?
A post shared byPirelli (@pirelli) on
Piers wasn’t best pleased with Pirelli’s 2020 calendar.
The formerly scanty publication featured Emma Watson, Claire Foy and Kristen Stewart in slightly… artier poses than the public might have expected.
Piers said: “They look miserable, they look like they need a good meal. Pirelli used to be sexy and fun. People smiling and having a good time. I mean Emma Watson in a nun’s habit? Really? Really?”
What everyone else said
Piers wasn’t the only one left cold by the Italian photographer Paolo Roversi's retelling of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ – not exactly a feminist Bible. Many saw the cover-up as an erroneous reaction to #MeToo. One critic wrote that Pirelli shouldn’t have abandoned nudity, but reimagined it, pointing out that naked women shouldn’t automatically be sexual.
What he probably meant (and should have said)
“While I fully support Pirelli’s move away from sexist and gratuitous nudity, it’s a shame that a calendar designed to inspire warm feelings has chosen such a grim tone. Publications should also take care to promote body diversity and not appear to endorse unhealthy eating habits.
“All the subjects are fabulous, talented women. They would look good in anything – even a habit – but there’s nothing fun (or feminist) about a nun.”
What he said about Little Mix
Piers came at Little Mix for their music video “Strip”, during which the women pose naked with insults written on their bodies. He said: “What is empowering about this? I mean seriously, get your kits off, airbrush yourself to within one inch of your lives and put a bunch of horrible words on yourself.
“What’s the point of it other than just using nudity to sell their album? That’s all it is. It’s nonsense. It’s just stripping off to sell records. It’s actually just using sex and sexuality to sell records. That’s it. There’s nothing else to this.”
What everyone else said
Piers came in for a drubbing from old spat-partner Ariana Grande, who Little Mix have joined on tour. “I use my talent AND sexuality all the time because I choose to,” she tweeted. “Women can be sexual AND talented. It’s OUR choice.”
What he probably meant (and should have said)
“There is nothing automatically empowering about nudity, especially when it’s being presented in a way that seems to court the traditionally sexist male gaze. And while there is no issue with female performers harnessing male desire and misogyny to achieve financial success, nor should it be described as a feminist statement.
I’m not saying the band aren’t feminist – and of course, they are entitled to do exactly as they please with their bodies – but we should be wary of conflating smart, entrepreneurial consumerism with feminism.”
Emma Watson (again): 'Can't get a bloke'
In November, Emma Watson made headlines for her remarks to British Vogue, describing finding happiness in being single. She used the term “self-partnered”.
Many happily single women – even those that love Emma – found their eyes rolling into the back of their heads. Piers went further, claiming that “self-partnering means you can’t get a bloke, right?”
He went on to say that we should “put negative spins on negatives”, adding: “You’ve got to deal with positives and negatives in a positive and negative way. Negatives happen in life, just stop trying to sugarcoat everything.”
What everyone else said
Reid defended the young actor, pointing out: “Emma Watson can have anyone she likes!”
However, the phrase was widely mocked for its self-indulgent jargonism on social media and in the news. Emma, for her part, later defended the term as a “throwaway comment”.
What he probably meant (and should have said)
“Self-partnered, like conscious uncoupling, seems like an empty Hollywood platitude for something that makes many people deeply unhappy. Emma Watson is talented, fiercely intelligent and attractive, and anyone would be lucky to go out with her. However, I’m delighted that she is happy being single.
“However, she’s also implying that in the past, being single was a source of emotional difficulty for her. It might be more honest and helpful to acknowledge the disproportionate social burden on single women and the potential heartache of loneliness. And besides, the phrase still implies the need for an ‘other’.”
Meghan Markle: 'Fake… hypocritical'
Piers has variously described the Duchess of Sussex as “fake”, “victim”, “ruthless social climber”, “hypocritical”, “extravagant”, “gleeful”, and any number of misogynistic slurs.
What everyone else said
Meghan has been called everything from a feminist hero here to revolutionise the staid British monarchy, to a demon succubus hell-bent on shaking it to its core. What seems true across the board, though, is nobody can get enough of her. Like Piers.
What he probably meant (and should have said)
“Meghan, I’m still devastated that you ghosted me that time. Please call me.”
Source: Read Full Article