you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

The Wuthering Heights director Emerald Fennell said it was “unfortunate” that a scene showing Margot Robbie’s hairy armpits did not make the final cut, because women in period adaptations are often shown with clean-shaven underarms.

Robbie’s character, Cathy, had “extremely hairy armpits” in the 2026 adaptation of the novel, but “unfortunately the scene that we see them didn’t make it in there”, said the director.

Cathy having unshaven pits “was so important to me”, she said, adding that she often wonders “where are the razors that these women are using?” when watching Jane Austen adaptations.

“They’re all kind of hairless like eels. I’m like: ‘What’s going on? It’s completely mad.’”

I think something pretty normal and understandable that people – who are used to being bombarded by other, very vocal, people's paraphilias online – will immediately and erroneously assume is something sexual.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    yeah id have just assumed the hair didnt make the final cut bc patriarchal bullshit. i dont see how this is a shitpost so much as just a shitty thing that happened? i figure we judge and control women's bodies more than enough day to day that we dont really need it in the shitpost sub. idk, just struck a cord with me this time i guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You're just assuming that (practically unfalsifiably) when the director suggests nothing of the sort, when footage gets cut from movies literally all the time for every reason under the Sun, and when there's shit in that movie an order of magnitude more provocative (see: the skin room) than a woman with hairy armpits (let alone historically accurately).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    yeah thats why i said "id just assume" not "i think"

    also, youre really mixing up provocative with patriarchal and thats unfortunate.

    anyway, simple misunderstanding. cheers

    edit - my issue isnt with the decision or the details as they are given, its of this being a post in a sub i love. i'll edit my comment to say "id have just"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    "I'd just assume" unprompted is functionally the same as "I think"; nobody first asked you "well if you had to assume, what would've happened?" We're all adults here; we all understand what words mean.

    And I used "provocative" because you're directly implying a form of patriarchical censorship for inherently one of two reasons or some combination: the patriarchical system 1) thinks it's too provocative or 2) thinks it's too superfluous, and (2) isn't per se patriarchy; reasonable minds can differ on whether the scene merited inclusion. I'm sure it wasn't like that scene from The Room where they make a big deal out of Mark's clean-shaven face; I'm sure the protein filaments growing out of Robbie's armpits weren't the nominal objective of the scene. Thus I assumed you were referring to the only one that's strictly, inherently patriarchical for which there wouldn't be a more plausible explanation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    those phrases aren't functionally the same. anyways i already edited my original comment for clarity.

    im not reading all that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)