She might look better doing it but 'feminist' Emily writhing around naked in spaghetti no more empowers women than if I stripped off for a live-streamed linguine shower

• e-mail

 What IS feminism?

I realise that simply by asking that question as a man, I will be instantly accused of ‘mansplaining’ by hordes of enraged women.

But just as I occasionally comment on the weather without ever having been to the Sun, I see no reason why I should not also be permitted to express an opinion about this subject given its relevance and prevalence in modern society.

My fresh interest was sparked by Emily Ratajkowski, the American model and actress.

Ms Ratajkowski recently posted a video on her Instagram of herself writhing semi-naked in spaghetti, complete with copious quantities of tomato sauce and various vegetables.

‘I love pasta and being greased up in olive oil more than life itself!’ she exclaimed in the promo for this ad, posted a few weeks ago

‘I love pasta and being greased up in olive oil more than life itself!’ she exclaimed in the promo for Love magazine.

Alongside her post, she wrote: ‘Personal choice is the core ideal in my concept of feminism. I’m tired of having to consider how I might be perceived by men if I post a sexy Instagram. I want to do what I want to do. Feminism isn’t about adjusting, it’s about freedom and choice.’

I responded by evoking the memory of the extraordinarily courageous heroine of the 19th Century suffragette women’s rights movement that ultimately won British women the right to vote.

‘Somewhere,’ I tweeted, ‘Emmeline Pankhurst just vomited.’

To which London-born Ms Ratajkowski, with no apparent semblance of self-awareness of even her own words,’ retorted: ‘Lol, never said my love video was a feminist statement.’

Yet that was EXACTLY what she had said.

Why does any of this matter?

Well, I certainly don’t care that Emily Ratajkowski, an undeniably beautiful and sexy woman, likes to take her clothes off and writhe in spaghetti.

Each to their own, so long as you don’t scare the children or horses - right?

But it’s where she conflates this behaviour with feminist empowerment that I have an issue.

Taking her argument to its logical conclusion, Ms Ratajkowski could commit mass murder but so long as she found it ‘empowering’ then that would automatically make it an act of feminism.

Which I would hope we can all agree is ridiculous.

Today, in a new interview for Grazia magazine, Ratajkowski branded me a ‘sexist’ for daring to question her motives for the video.

Today, in a new interview, Ratajkowski branded me a ‘sexist’ for daring to question her motives for this video

‘I think there’s a valid argument behind the idea that sexiness is patriarchal and that’s problematic,’ she opined. ‘It can be really limiting to young women who feel like that’s their self-expression; someone telling them that they can’t do that is suppressing. It’s not taking people seriously because of how they present themselves, which women get a lot more than men.’

Ah, of course!

Because if I stripped naked tomorrow and writhed about in spaghetti, and then posted the video on MY Instagram claiming it was empowering to men, everyone would take me so seriously!

What a load of insane, incomprehensible gibberish.

The reason Emily Ratajkowski made the video had nothing to do with ‘feminist empowerment’ and everything to do with attention-seeking and marketing her naked beauty.

Neither of which I have any problem with, indeed I do exactly the same myself.

Emily Ratajkowski made the video because she's attention-seeking and marketing her naked beauty, not feminist empowerment. I have no problem with that and have done the same, seen here

But to justify it as empowering and liberating to women like she’s some modern day Pankhurst-style suffragette is as absurd as it’s offensive.

The truth, surely, is that deliberately exposing yourself to instant and inevitable sexual objectification by millions of complete strangers is the complete opposite of feminism?

To understand why I say this, it’s important to understand the genesis and evolution of feminism.

The word itself is derived from the French word ‘féminisme’ which was coined, ironically, by a man - philosopher Charles Founier - in 1837.

He invented it to mean the indelible link between women’s status and social progress. ‘Liberty, unless enjoyed by all,’ he wrote, ‘is unreal and illusory.’

In other words, true freedom can’t be achieved without true equality.

If you look up ‘feminism’ in the dictionary today, it is defined thus: ‘the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.’

So, nearly 300 years later, it is still understood to be about equality.

That brings me back to Ms Ratajkowski.

How exactly does writhing naked in spaghetti fit in with this ideal?

What does it have to do with equality?

If you look up ‘feminism’ in the dictionary, it is defined: ‘the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.’  How exactly does writhing naked in spaghetti fit in with this ideal? What does it have to do with equality? A man would be mocked for a similar stunt

What man would not be instantly mocked and ridiculed if he pulled a similar stunt?

The answer to these questions is obviously ‘it doesn’t’, ‘nothing’ and ‘no man.’

Ms Ratajkowski has form for this kind of thing.

Her ruthlessly cynical modus operandi follows a rigidly familiar pattern:

She poses for deeply provocative semi-naked images, posts them on social media to tens of millions of people, says she’s doing it to promote feminist empowerment, and then screams ‘SEXIST!’ if men like me dare to suggest this is ludicrous.

The most infamous example of this came when Kim Kardashian posted a naked photo of herself two years ago and played the feminist empowerment card.

After I harangued her for it, Ratajkowski tweeted: ‘Love when a man comments on a decision to post a nude photo. Her body, her career. Sexist bullsh*t.’

She then posed together with Kardashian for a bird-flipping topless selfie – once again depicting it as a supposed show of feminist empowerment.

But to whom, exactly, was it empowering?

After Kim Kardashian posted a naked photo of herself two years ago and played the feminist empowerment card,  Ratajkowski defended her and called me 'Sexist bullsh*t.’ She then posed together with Kardashian for this bird-flipping topless selfie. To whom is this empowering?

To my eyes, all it did was send a warped, dangerous message to millions of impressionable young girls that the only way to succeed in life is to strip off and shamelessly sell your naked body to the world.

That’s a word for that kind of behaviour and it’s not feminism.

The fight for gender equality, as with the fight for racial equality, has been a long and brutal one.

Emmeline Pankhurst and her suffragettes literally risked their lives and liberty to wage a relentless and often violent struggle for it.

In 1913, one of them, Emily Davison, was killed when she threw herself under the King’s horse at the Derby as a protest against the government’s continued failure to grant women voting rights.

Just before Pankhurst died in 1928, women were finally given the vote.

She won her fight, and by doing so, she landed a massively powerful blow for women’s equality.

I always think of her whenever I see the likes of Ratajkowski or Kardashian posting naked photos and claiming they are doing it for feminist empowerment, and I’m not the only one.

Emmeline Pankhurst and her suffragettes risked their lives and liberty. Just before she died in 1928, women were finally given the vote. I think of her often when I see the naked photos done for 'female empowerment'. Even her great-granddaughter Helen has called it 'disingenuous'

‘It is rather disingenuous of Kim Kardashian and Emily Ratajkowski to say they are doing this in the name of ‘liberation’, said Pankhurst’s great-granddaughter Helen Pankhurst in a newspaper column. ‘The fact is they are conventionally beautiful women who have created a sexy image of themselves as naked. Would they be sharing all in the name of liberation if they had average bodies and carried a little extra weight? It could be argued that they are contributing to sexual objectification – the very opposite of ‘liberation’. And this is a problem for the millions of women, especially teenage girls across the world who are routinely made to feel their worth measured in terms of their sexual attractiveness and more dangerous still, in direct proportion to how much they weigh. How many people are held back by low self-esteem, eating disorders, exercise and even self-harm as a result of worship of unobtainable standards of beauty? And the saddest thing is that they are unobtainable; in most cases, they are literally not real. Photoshop is a big part of the problem.’

Exactly.

We all saw – to her horror - what Kim Kardashian really looks like naked when those uncensored beach snaps emerged earlier this year.

Her brand, like Ratajkowski’s, is just a photo-shopped illusion.

And it’s such a dangerous distracting illusion at a time when the fight for women’s rights has never been more vital.

As Helen Pankhurst added: ‘Women represent two-thirds of those who cannot read and write; less than one in five landholders are women; one in three women worldwide are exposed to physical or sexual violence from a partner in their lifetime; globally, women earn 24% less than men and on average, women spend twice as much time on household chores than men and four times as much time on childcare.’

She concluded: ‘We still do not live in a world where women and men can have the same aspirations and the same opportunities. There are millions of feminists – women and men – for whom the term still has a meaning and purpose. Feminism is both alive and urgent.’

Yes, it is.

I consider myself a feminist and I passionately believe in the principle of gender equality.

If there’s a protest march for that, then count me in.

But I’m never going to march for Emily Ratajkowski’s right to strip naked in spaghetti – and nor should any genuine feminist.