As Hollywood reeled from the allegations of sexual harassment by Harvey Weinstein, Emmy award-winning actress Mayim Bialik penned an op-ed for The New York Times last week that made matters a little more…complicated. Entitled “Mayim Bialik: Being a Feminist in Harvey Weinstein’s World,” the piece talks about Hollywood’s obsession with appearance, how actresses look and behave, and the relationship of those two things to feminism and sexual harassment. In particular, Bialik mentions:

“And yet I have also experienced the upside of not being a “perfect ten.” As a proud feminist with little desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms. Those of us in Hollywood who don’t represent an impossible standard of beauty have the “luxury” of being overlooked and, in many cases, ignored by men in power unless we can make them money.

I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.

I am entirely aware that these types of choices might feel oppressive to many young feminists. Women should be able to wear whatever they want. They should be able to flirt however they want with whomever they want. Why are we the ones who have to police our behavior?

In a perfect world, women should be free to act however they want. But our world isn’t perfect. Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women. But we can’t be naïve about the culture we live in.”

The reactions on 11&more were immediate and polarizing. Is Bialik a feminist or is she victim-shaming? Are her observations on-point or dangerously narrow generalizations?

A slap in the face to feminism?

Jia Jia (culture change consultant, based in New York): She’s framing her point as, this is helpful advice for naive young feminists but I really think she’s just being conformist to the patriarchy. She says that in an ideal world, women would be free to act and dress as we want, but because the world’s not perfect, we have to watch out and dress down. Well, in an ideal world, no one would feel the need to diet, get plastic surgery, or hire a personal trainer to succeed in Hollywood. But since the world’s not perfect, why is she criticizing her peers who do? And also, does she really think that every woman who’s been sexually harassed somehow dressed or acted in a way that brought their sexual self forward? That logic starts to sound dangerously close to strong ideology  à la The Handsmaid’s Tale. I totally get advice like, The world sucks. Be careful. You might have to dress down so you don’t attract attention to yourself. But framing it as, True feminists don’t care about looking good. If you do and if you make yourself presentable, you’re neither a feminist nor sensible rings false.

Sneha (lawyer, based in Sydney): Agree with Jia Jia. The way Mayim frames it totally puts the onus back on women—it doesn’t actually make sense to say, Nothing excuses men’s behavior but oh wait men will always behave badly so we women need to be careful. Also, it doesn’t need to be said. Women are constantly, from a very young age, told to be careful, to watch out, to not attract attention blah blah—we really don’t need to hear it again. And it implies that women CAN control this sort of thing by what they wear etc. when the reality is—the vast majority of assaults happen by people close to you, and it wouldn’t make a hoot of a difference if you were wearing a burqa or a bikini.

Stephanie (policy analyst, based in London): This is why women don’t speak up, no? This is another example that helps confirm how true that is.

Janice (producer & writer, based in New York): She’s essentially victim-blaming/shaming.

Or a nuanced argument against Hollywood’s male-dominated predatory culture?

Ahalya (economic consultant, based in the Bay Area): I actually didn’t get that impression from reading the article the first time round. I think we should keep in mind the full context of the article which was a scathing critique of male-dominated Hollywood’s objectification and general mistreatment of women. I read her comments that she had the ‘luxury’ of not being assaulted as a wry condemnation of that ridiculous appearance-obsessed system—she has been criticized repeatedly for her appearance, which is obviously painful for her, but also ironically spares her from immediate unwanted male attention and advances. On the other hand, beautiful women are praised and valued for their looks, but may be more prone to sexually predatory behavior -so women basically can’t win at any time.

I didn’t read her advice to women to be less ‘naive’ as victim-shaming. I read it more as trying to help women who are caught in this oppressive system but may not realize the full extent of male toxic behavior. Of course the core issue isn’t clothing and it’s outrageous to tell women to dress more conservatively if they want to avoid being assaulted—I react very negatively to that too. I wasn’t sure she was saying that though. Overall, I felt her point was that it’s very difficult for women to succeed in show business given there is so much pressure to conform to a specific beauty ‘ideal,’ and she is trying to serve as a role model for women who don’t fit that ideal by telling them there is much more to life than physical beauty, and it doesn’t guarantee you love and happiness—you just have to accept who you are and make the best of your own strengths:

“I believe that we can change our culture, but it won’t be something that happens overnight. We live in a society that has treated women as disposable playmates for far longer than Mr. Weinstein has been meeting ingénues in luxury hotel rooms…

In the meantime, I plan to continue to work hard to encourage young women to cultivate the parts of themselves that may not garner them money and fame. If you are beautiful and sexy, terrific. But having others celebrate your physical beauty is not the way to lead a meaningful life.

And if — like me — you’re not a perfect 10, know that there are people out there who will find you stunning, irresistible and worthy of attention, respect and love. The best part is you don’t have to go to a hotel room or a casting couch to find them.”

On a balance, a feminist who is limited by her own prejudices?

Priyali (journalist, based in D.C.): I think Mayim Bialik wanted to write about body-image issues and the anecdotes and her personal story would actually raise that issue very well. I think it was a hard attempt at fitting in Harvey Weinstein, sexual harassment and feminism all into one piece.

First, a woman who is not a perfect 10, may or may not be a feminist. She may or may not choose to be flirtatious. Second, a woman who is a perfect 10 also might value intellect, feminism and still choose to be flirtatious or not. The permutations and combinations can be plenty. We can’t box women into categories or for that matter even men.

So I guess it is extremely wrong to make suggestions, give advice assuming people are of a typical type and how they can self-improve their circumstances.

Sneha: I agree she makes some great points in the article but at the end of the day I don’t think you can say women shouldn’t be naive about male behavior and should recognize that we live in a less than perfect world, without at some level implying that women have some responsibility for what happens to them. Especially in the context of her describing herself dressing in a self-protective way etc. I know she mitigates it by saying that she’s aware a lot of women would find this oppressive but why use that kind of language in the first place?

Nwando (artist, performer, musician, activist, based in Manchester): Yes double agree Jia Jia and Sneha. She’s really been taken out of context—but I can see why people are angry. There is something so distasteful and upsetting to me to read a woman who claims to be a feminist and someone who is supporting women and girls and advising the next generation saying:

“Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women. But …”

There should be no further sentence after the first one. Anything written afterwards contradicts it. Anything written afterwards just takes the responsibility from the assaulter and the abuser. 

Shruti (behavioral scientist and writer, based in the Bay Area): I didn’t see her as necessarily victim blaming as much as rambling about her experiences in a very specific context.

Having said that, I did think for a second that Hollywood surely must be a nicer place than the real world where a frumpy appearance and more brains than beauty won’t save you from both cavalier and regular sexual harassment and occasional molestation and assault.

If she indeed thinks not being beautiful can save women from sexual predators, she is rather out of touch with reality.

Jia Jia: I prefer the late great Carrie Fisher’s attitude to sexual harassement. Apparently, she gave a cow tongue to a predatory producer who assaulted her friend Heather Ross. The gift was in a Tiffany box and accompanied by the note, “If you ever touch my darling Heather or any other woman again, the next delivery will be something of yours in a much smaller box!” Now that’s epic.