Megan Fox: Sex Symbol, Mouthy Slut, Or Something Else Entirely?
Posted by: Sady Doyle
Filed in:
celebs
1:29PM, Monday July 27th 2009
Ladies, gentlemen: “Transformers” is not a movie about acting.
I know! It came as a surprise to me, too: I had always believed that “Transformers” aspired to be a sensitive exploration of the human psyche. As it turns out, however, it’s a movie about giant robots fighting each other.
So, no: “Transformers” is many things, but it is not a movie about acting. However, when its star Megan Fox said as much in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, it set off a firestorm of controversy, most of which can be summed up in the title of a post on the blog Zelda Lily (“Feminism in a Bra”): “Megan Fox Is An Ungrateful Bitch.”
Hating Megan Fox has become a popular pastime, particularly on the internet. A Google search for “Megan Fox bitch” brings up 960,000 results; “Megan Fox slut” brings up 459,000. There’s an entire blog – F**kYouMeganFox.tumblr.com – on which the common complaints and foot-in-mouth interview quotes are endlessly rehashed, often with sparkling commentary along the lines of “stop talking ... we like you better with your mouth shut.” Professional coverage has hardly been better: Ted Casablanca for “E! Online” speculated that she could either be a “raging, hypersexual bisexual,” a “slut,” (there’s that word again) or someone who “runs her mouth purely for attention.”
So, yes: everyone hates Megan Fox. Or, at least, they hate her when they’re not talking about how hot she is. A Google search for “Megan Fox boobs” brings up a chart-topping 1,190,000 hits. She’s done the Hollywood sex-object routine: she’s appeared in her underwear for FHM; she’s appeared in a bikini top for GQ; there’s a particularly memorable shot in the “Transformers 2” preview in which she “fixes” a motorcycle by draping herself on top of it, hindquarters thrust up to heaven; and most of the professional critics who attended “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen” skipped the plot altogether (I hear it’s about giant robots who fight each other) in favor of praising Megan Fox as the world’s most miraculous boner-dispensing device. She bounces! She writhes! She “fixes” motorcycles! Etcetera.
None of the above, however, is unusual. If she’d just done the sexy photos and the robot movies, she’d be indistinguishable from any otherMaxim-approved starlet – and she probably wouldn’t have her own hate blog. What bothers people about Megan Fox is that she talks about being a sex object.
“I’ve been typecast by some already—as a slut,” she told the Daily Star on Sunday, in an interview that was blogged all over, often with the standard “but you are a slut” commentary. Here’s another bit that was everywhere, from the Entertainment Weekly interview in which she slammed “Transformers”:
“I think all women in Hollywood are known as sex symbols. That’s what our purpose is in this business. You’re merchandised, you’re a product. You’re sold and it’s based on sex.”
A Google search for “Megan Fox feminist” brings up only 61,400 hits. This, despite the fact that she calls herself one.
Granted, not everything Fox says is smart. To the statement quoted above, she added, “I think women should be empowered by [being sold as sex objects], not degraded”: I’m still trying to figure out how that works. However, last time I checked, she was a movie star doing promotional interviews and not a Ph.D. candidate defending her thesis on feminist cinema, so it’s hard to work up any outrage. Her main crimes seem to consist of making a few eye-roll-worthy Intro to Women’s Studies statements about “empowerment,” yammering on about sex whenever she feels like it (and she feels like it a lot), and complaining too often about her job. At this point, I’m kind of uncertain as to whether we’re talking about Megan Fox or things that I did in college.
The Megan Fox furor is overblown, but it’s not unfamiliar. Sasha Grey, a porn star, made her mainstream film debut last year in Steven Soderbergh’s “The Girlfriend Experience”; she gave an interview to the AV Club in which she talked about Catherine Breillat, Method acting, and “Star Trek.” Commenters responded with remarks such as “she’s just meat,” and “you’re a masturbatory aid, Sasha Grey. Nothing more.” Similarly, although Diablo Cody may not be the best screenwriter ever to win an Oscar on her first try, the fact that topless photos (taken from her personal blog) “surfaced” directly after the win seems like a pretty blatant, ugly attempt to tear her down and establish her as just another ex-stripper.
This is what we do to women: tell them to be hot, sexy, sexual. We consistently define women’s worth around their bodies, around how attractive they are. Then, when a woman actually goes for it, and makes bank with her sexuality or her looks, we tell her that she can never be anything else. That she should have been a “good girl” all along. That, having played the game, she can never express an opinion about it: We like you better with your mouth shut.
What’s most disheartening about the Megan Fox coverage is that a lot of the harshest statements seem to come from women, and often, as in the case of Zelda Lily, in the name of “feminism.” It’s hard to tell exactly what feminism means these days, but I’m pretty sure telling women that they should be seen and not heard – saying that they can be “good,” non-sexual girls who are allowed to think, or sex objects who remain passive, vacant, and acquiescent – ain’t it.
Recently, it was rumored that Fox turned down a James Bond movie because her part wasn’t big enough and she didn’t want to play a love interest. It was presented as yet another example of Megan Fox being “arrogant” and “ungrateful” to the all-powerful film industry to which she apparently owes nothing but doe-eyed, fawning devotion. It also turned out to be untrue. But it says something about how we perceive Fox: Apparently, we hate her for playing sex objects, and we hate her for not playing sex objects. At this point, her only viable option for pleasing everyone would seem to be starring in an all-nude biopic of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
So, it’s unlikely that we’re going to stop talking about Megan Fox, Sex Symbol – or Megan Fox, Mouthy Slut – any time soon. Personally, as long as we’re doing that, I want Megan Fox to be one of the people talking.
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Riley
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 12:53 pm: [report]
I still don’t get how “slut” can come up. Granted, I haven’t been the most avid Megan Fox follower.
She is pretty, she can’t act and has opinions on par with every other celeb. Pretty much my take on it.
PinkRanger
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 01:40 pm: [report]
yeah “mouthy slut” seems a touch harsh. But I rarely find the term “slut” appropriate anyway…...
LiciMama
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 03:36 pm: [report]
She isn’t the worst actress out there. I don’t see why when women are aware that the entertainment industry is capitalizing on their good looks, people get all in a tizzy. Good lord she is a hot and knows it. Can we move on yet? Nope we all have to behave badly and rip her to shreds for her entire life until another women claims that its all about money. *Gasp* Making movies on the scale that they are made is about money. If harry potter didnt make a dime on the first move there would have been no sequels. Do we really believe that people watched tomb raider for its intense introspection into the life of a pseudo-archaeologist? The execs will find a product that people want and give it to them. I was told by a director that a play only mattered if buts were in the seats.
And its pretty damn funny that people thought transformers was going to be about acting. I have been watching it since I was a kid and it has never once been about the acting.
becknee
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 04:38 pm: [report]
Thanks for such a thoughtful look at the firestorm that seems to follow Megan Fox.
This seems to be one of the catch-22s of being female: not only are you damned if you do and damned if you don’t as far as sexuality and attractiveness, but female sex symbols are condemned from all directions (feminist, anti-feminist, people who don’t care much about feminism) for essentially the same “offenses”.
bumbler
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 04:48 pm: [report]
First I’ll freely admit that I do not care for Megan Fox. What annoys me about her is how she is just as guilty of typecasting herself in the sexpot role as Hollywood and the culture as general. While I have nothing against sexually liberated and confident women (hopefully I’m one myself) seeing her numerous interviews where she rails against stars like Scarlett Johansen and Natalie Portman for using “SAT words” and then goes on to talk about how she is so sexy is just tiresome. She presents herself with as much depth or interest as a paddling pool. Perhaps I’m cynical and old-fashioned but I’m tired of the idea that the best women (Jessica Simpson anyone?) are beautiful, curvaceous, and simple. I’ve seen too many young girls dumb themselves down to sing the praises of any entertainer who supports this stereotype.
humming angela
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 06:39 pm: [report]
I just take offense to her pride in her “acting chops”, of which, she has yet to exhibit.
Yeah, whatev, you’re sexy. Totally. That’s fine. I tend to ignore people that talk about how sexy they are because I prefer the more humble people. She just seems like those people in high school that just annoyed the #&@$% out of you.
Anyway, she’s not my type (I’m a guy kinda girl). Personally, I like the more unique and beautiful girls, like Maggie Gyllenhaal. But, if her sexy android lady looks can get her some good sex, well good for her.
PRican
wrote on July 27 2009 @ 07:29 pm: [report]
I also tend to go for people who are humble about their good looks as opposed to those who play it up so much that they don’t have a personality to match.
It is what it is in this case. Discussing “MegaFox” (hehe) is sooo done already. Let her make her money, place herself in whatever position (pun intended) she wants, and just move it along. If she believes she’s empowered via effective commodification, let her believe that. Whatevs.
robertsmithshairspray
wrote on July 28 2009 @ 05:22 am: [report]
Full of herself, man. She was completely attention seeking with that whole tattoo sleeve thing, and the way she just wants to talk about her looks is ridiculous. I’d rather hear about an actress who actually bothers to act, not another idiot who’s caught up in being some kind of celebrity. People will have forgotten about her in a year’s time.
Alexa
wrote on July 28 2009 @ 10:39 am: [report]
She got labeled as a “slut” because she has the audacity to talk openly about her sexuality, or female sexuality (for good or bad - not my call). Any woman who dares to do that is labeled a slut right off the bat.
Claireific
wrote on July 29 2009 @ 03:28 pm: [report]
Jeez, when I read the line “you’re a masturbatory aid, Sasha Grey. Nothing more.” I literally winced. What a cruel thing to say to a woman.
stephoney22
wrote on July 29 2009 @ 07:51 pm: [report]
I’m one of the women who’s said bad things about her and I still have a big problem with women like her. Her quote you posted defines why I feel the way I do. She’s wrong, not all women in Hollywood are seen as sex symbols, nor is it their purpose and many truly want to be good at their craft. It is an art and some of the women “in Hollywood” are doing it because they want to be esteemed actresses and some of their work is “Hollywood” level as opposed to stage or independent films. Slut or not, she ACTS like it by the way she is promoting herself and by what she says. She isn’t promoting female sexuality, she is feeding into male perceptions of sexiness. We each choose for ourselves, she doesn’t have to act “sexy” and be a sex symbol all the time, she chooses to. She is making her business and her cohorts look even worse. And I won’t let down until I see a change. Sarah Palin is probably opposite of Megan Fox but I feel equally passionate. They are both bad examples of what a woman in the spotlight should be. A lot needs to change in both of them to earn my respect. A lot.
seriouslyreal
wrote on July 30 2009 @ 02:17 pm: [report]
First off I’m tired of the hype that surrounds this girl. I don’t think she deserves it. There are plenty of beautiful, smart, sexy girls in Hollywood. The only reason she is getting mega watt attention is because of the big budget movie she did not act in. You see a lot of young starlets who do not come across like she does. I think she tries too hard to be sexy. Sexy is not about wearing short skirts and high heels and a lot of make-up. She is not aware of this yet..she believes her own hype and makes statements to get reactions. It’s gets her press. And it’s really old. The audience is smart enough to see through this..truly. And in time if she can’t act and if she can’t carry a movie..her status will begin to fade. I think the problem with her is that she may be a pretty face..but there is nothing alluring behind it. Her personality in public (I don’t know what she is really like) comes off as just plain boring and dumb. She is just boring…period.
GreenAura
wrote on July 30 2009 @ 04:38 pm: [report]
A lot of the younger generation of actors and actresses in Hollywood have discovered a “schtick” that gets them attention. And in Hollywood, attention = money (except in Lindsay Lohan’s case). Megan Fox = sexpot that caters to men, Spencer Pratt = loudmouth douche, Scarlett Johansson = old Hollywood glamour w/ brains that is appealing to both men and women, Paris Hilton = (do I really need to go there??). You get the drift. Megan Fox found what works for her and what gets her attention and she is running with it. Let her do it, who cares! Besides, according to Hollywood standards, her sexiness is set to “expire” in T-minus 15 years… afterall, 40 is the new 80 there!
Pamela
wrote on July 30 2009 @ 05:42 pm: [report]
she speaks her mind, at least she is being honest with what she thinks
DancingGeek
wrote on July 30 2009 @ 08:03 pm: [report]
Who freaking cares? The constant media coverage of when celebrities… go to starbbucks, boink someone on camera, go without panties(yeah I said panties!)and take a dump is appalling. Do we not have anything more important to worry about in this country?
She’s an actress would and she’s full of herself? Oh! lets alert the media. Why else would a person actually choose acting as a profession. Hollywood is filled with attention whores, whether they can actually act or not is irrelevant, if someone is willing to pay them, well I guess that’s why they’re in the business.
dudette
wrote on July 31 2009 @ 07:54 am: [report]
Hey I actually appreciate her honesty. I have heard her in interviews say that she is not sure if she really act because she acknowledges that she *did not* act in transformers because thats not what that movie was about (true). She might come off a little harsh in interviews sometimes but I honestly think she doesnt know how to handle the press yet. Yes, shes sexy and knows it…I don’t think theres anything wrong with that. She knows that her career could have a bigger break or fizzle so shes taking sexy to the bank. I probably would too.
Frederica Bimble
wrote on July 31 2009 @ 08:16 am: [report]
Megan Fox could work on her self-esteem if she actually thinks Scarlett Johannson and Natalie Portman use “SAT words.” I assume she means they use “big words.” That statement runs parallel to the “12 Signs you’re dating a Loser” list. “Disliking successful people,” ie; bitterness at more secure or learned or experienced people which highlights one’s own self-conceived inadequacies.
Secondly, people are in a tizzy because once she’s opened her mouth and proved that she is aware of how other’s see her, to men, she is no longer “prey,” and to women, she is no longer taking the back-seat like so many other women do. It is a form of holding a mirror up to women: “Why does SHE get away with having that sort of power, when I can’t?”
I am only going on what is written in the article, mind.
dudette: Agreed.
gloria
wrote on July 31 2009 @ 11:40 am: [report]
My 0.02:
I don’t think Megan Fox the person is really that different than the people who lash out against her. She represents the struggle that a lot of women know all too well. The desire to be autonomous, sexually desirable, financially independent, successful, respected individuals who are able to maintain a balance of being real and vulnerable yet untouchable at the same time. She also represents the very real tension between women - that women are pitted against for men’s attention, or rather men’s desire. While a women’s worth is based on much more than the relationships that she had, has or may have, those intimate relationships are still an integral part of her life. If Megan Fox were to succeed in all of her platic-surgery enhanced glory, it would be threatening to many women on a very visceral level. In large part because her success would be tied directly to her willingness to be a sex object as opposed to any intellectual or meaningful endeavor. And I don’t think the vast majority of women will accept her until she cuts through her own BS.
seriouslyreal
wrote on August 1 2009 @ 06:27 am: [report]
What bugs me about her and a lot of those starlets is they do get so caught up in the image of what sexy is. When you have to talk about how sexy you are..you are simply NOT. I admire actors like Mila Kunis. She’s beautiful. She can act. She keeps a low profile in the biz. She is slowly working her way through the ranks and she is deserving of any attention. But she doesn’t go after it like some do. She’s just very low-key and she is far prettier than Megan Fox. Megan’s little trick to get press will get boring. It’s boring now and it will be boring next week. However, the media seems to pick up on the most ridiculous things these days. Anyone can be famous now so it doesn’t seem so special anymore. You don’t have to work for fame. Case in point..Jon Gosselin. It’s all a joke now.
seriouslyreal
wrote on August 1 2009 @ 06:35 am: [report]
And one more starlet that talks about doing a girl..or being photographed on the cover of a magazine with her hands over her breasts in a sexy pose..enough! Just a ploy for attention that came and went with Madonna. It’s OVER. It’s gotten to the point where even saying that has no effect anymore. So, when I read those quips from Megan..I’m like same old same old..boring. Come up with something a little more clever..and this just doesn’t go for her. I mean..Jessica Simpson comes across as more authentic and real.
crimsonletter
wrote on August 2 2009 @ 10:02 pm: [report]
I hate Megan Fox.
Can’t stand her. Is she hot? Sure. But the things that come out of her mouth! I think she’s offensive because she reinforces the stereotype that sexy women can’t be smart too—she certainly don’t act smart. I am not offended by her sexuality, I love women who are openly sexual beings. I don’t care who she sleeps with, or how many people. I am offended because she says unfeminist things about how women should be perceived, ridiculous offensive things about gender rolls and bisexuals and lesbians, and she insults smarter celebrities like Scarlet Johansson just because their speach is more complicated than hers. I hate Megan Fox because she hasn’t proved she has a brain and I think that brings down the perception of women: Sure, think a hot woman is hot, but love her for her body and brains, don’t love a vapid pretty shell. @bumbler had it right—Megan Fox typecasts herself.
And since Sasha Grey came up—Hate Megan Fox, but I like Sasha Grey. Because she isn’t vapid, proves that women in that industry can have a brain, can control their own destinies. Smart women, confident in their sexuality = sexy.
toyen
wrote on August 12 2009 @ 08:50 pm: [report]
I think she is hot, but that evaporates every time she opens her mouth. SAT words aside, Johansson is sexy because she doesn’t need to prove or talk about how sexy she is all the damn time.
Wife of a Soldier
wrote on August 27 2009 @ 03:35 pm: [report]
Sign me up for a viewing of the Elizabeth Cady Stanton biopic - Megan Fox or no. I think that’d be awesome :D