Here are more photos of Amy Schumer and her boyfriend Ben at the British GQ Awards on Tuesday night. Again, this was not the best look for Amy. The makeup and hair combo is really not working. Amy has been in London this week to do some shows and to promote her book, which isn’t doing that well. Schumer ended up sitting down for a serious interview with the BBC in what seems like a 60 Minutes type of show (just for context for American readers). Amy chatted about politics, Donald Trump, feminism and more. Some highlights:
What will happen if Donald Trump wins: “My act will change because I will need to learn to speak Spanish because I will move to Spain or somewhere. It’s beyond my comprehension if Trump won. It’s too crazy.”
On feminism: “I think anyone who is not a feminist is an insane person. I think they don’t know what feminism means. It just means equality for women. But I think that word has a whole different meaning for different people. So someone will say to me: ‘You’re not a feminist are you?’… Of course I am. Of course I want equal rights for women…. Feminism is just about women having social, political and economic equality. I feel very comfortable speaking about myself as a comedian and a feminist because those are two things that I completely am. Those are two words that definitely define me.”Her support of Hillary Clinton: “I haven’t had a conversation with anyone who doesn’t like Hillary where they’ve had anything meaningful to say. I think she’s caught so much flack for so long now, because she isn’t what they think of as a woman. They were mad she wasn’t making cookies, but she was like ‘Oh no, I’m getting healthcare for every mother in the country.’ They don’t like how she speaks or dresses. It’s everything except how she would be as a president.”
While I agree with her in principle about the definition of feminism and how everyone should identify as a feminist, I do feel like that was an opportunity for the BBC reporter to press Amy further about some very problematic statements she’s made just in the past month, nevermind throughout the past few years. As for what she says about Clinton and Trump… the conservative media has already seized on her comments as a way to encourage people to vote for Trump. As in, a vote for Trump is a vote for sending Amy Schumer to Spain. Petty. But what she says about Clinton is dead-on.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Weird body language with the boyfriend. It is like he is being paid to be there, but not paid very well. ETA: hair and makeup are ok, it is the bizarre neckline/shoulder of the dress that I dislike.
Her hair and makeup are not ok at all, she looks dreadful.
She looks constipated! Stop wearing short dresses which cut your overall body size in half…and make you look chunkier than you actually are.
She looks terrible IMO. And Amy you’re not a good feminist you’re at best a bad white feminist much like your terrible group of friends like Lena. Please have a seat. I cannot wait for her to be over
I don’t feel like what she says about Clinton is dead on at all! Many, way too many, believe the Crooked Hillary narrative Trump has been spewing. None of the discussions I’ve had with others centers on her baking cookies or being a homemaker, but on the Foundation, the email leak, and potential fraud. I KNOW it is an exhausting narrative, but here she could have said “these have been disputed and disproven ad nauseum and Trump supporters still cling to these notions as fact” or SOMETHING like that, instead of talking about some homemaker desire like that’s the big probem. It was a wasted opportunity. It’s superficial…
I think that cookie narrative dates back to when she was First Lady? Or even before that. I think Schumer is conflating things and that’s where she loses me. She’s not wrong, she’s just mixing and matching to make her argument.
I don’t know who she talks to but Hillary isn’t perfect. There is ONE very big reason to vote for her and that reason is orange. There are many reasons to dislike her politics but apparently those aren’t valid for Schumer. Fine. But if she only talks to people who love or hate Hillary, she needs to talk to different people.
Yes, the cookie narrative dates to her First Lady days and I thought Schumer’s point was that Hillary has been on the receiving end of scrutiny and disparagement since Day 1 of her time in the public eye. And she’s right that people don’t seem to have anything meaningful to say when they sputter about how “crooked” she is…they really are just repeating a narrative that’s been spun in an extremely calculated fashion for decades. It’s evolved but the main objective — to diminish her credibility, even take her down — hasn’t wavered.
The cookie incident was from her time as first lady of Arkansas…so its been going on a long time. When she became FLOTUS, that narrative continued because many people thought she was too involved. While the origins of the “cookie narrative” go back a long way, the sexist core of that argument is still being used against her. See the people that question her because she didn’t divorce her husband when he cheated on her.
I agree with her on that. People I know that support Trump do not give real reasons why they do and all they say about Hillary is she’s a liar.
I just read a fact check regarding the emails at Politifact…and I am AMAZED about how the situation is being portrayed in short hand by the media.
NONE of the emails that were shared were marked classified. Some of them might have contained information that was actually classified, but the sender did not include the proper headers, etc. that would tell the reader that it was classified information.
Here’s a link to the politifact story on the emails:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/07/hillary-clinton/clinton-says-none-her-emails-were-labeled-top-secr/
“Information isn’t classified until a designated authority within the government declares it classified. The way that person shows their determination is by adding a header and footer to the relevant document, often tacking on a cover sheet, too — all to make it clear that the document contains classified information.
Clinton is correct that the FBI did not find any such labels in her emails.”
Hillary supporter here. There are plenty of meaningful critiques you can make against HRC, she is a flawed politician & has done some sketchy stuff in the past. That being said, all politicians have done sketchy things so that doesn’t make her abnormal, she’s just treated that way because of her gender. It isn’t a difficult decision to vote for HRC because Trump can NOT be our next president. If the republicans had run a different candidate then maybe it wouldn’t be such an easy decision to vote for Hillary, but they went with a dildo covered in cheeto dust who spews bigoted and ignorant comments.
Have you looked at #LaueringTheBar? Hysterical (and pointed).
Honestly it is so ridiculous because HRC is highly flawed and even problematic at times! Obviously compared to Drumpf she is the sensible choice. And I will be voting miss Kewl with the Kids since it’s her or that orange thing with small hands, as I still mourn Bernie.
Hillary isn’t getting treated more harshly because of her gender. She actually is getting a pass for a lot of things male politicians would have been driven out of politics for – her stolen valor comments about being under sniper fire in Bosnia would have done in any male candidate. Her taking credit for other people’s work would have been ripped apart by any male candidate. In the Obama/Hillary primary, she claimed credit for the Irish Peace Treaty which she played no part in. She claimed credit for CHIP when she played a very, very minor support role. The media never called out her bullshit and had to be called on it by Sinbad, Todd Kennedy, Orrin Hatch, Sen. Rockafeller, and others.
It’s embarassing her supporters try to deflect all of the Hillary criticism to sexism. And as a woman, I find it appalling.
I’m with you Twodollars. There are very legitimate criticisms to be made, and blaming any criticism on sexism is just insulting to women. I just can’t bring myself to vote for either candidate in this election, though. I’m going to vote for the Libertarian candidate if his name actually appears on the ballot. Yes, yes. I know everyone says it won’t matter, but at least it will send a message that neither of these candidates are worth voting for, and maybe it will help in the long run to have more than a two party system.
This cabbage patch doll come to life needs to quit. We are NOT buying what you’re selling Amy.
Her and her buddy Lena can take this trashy brand of “I’m a feminist, listen to meeee (because I’m not pretty…except don’t say that, only I can say that)” and take a seat.
And yes, her outfit is unflattering to her body. She should look into the best cuts and styles for big arms and shoulders because the spaghetti straps and asymmetric/strapless designs she prefers ain’t it.
I do not find her funny at all and mildly dislike her. But her love of spaghetti straps even though she has “big arms and shoulders” is not one of the reasons why. Let her dress how she wants.
“cabbage patch doll come to life” I just spat out my tea!
I don’t care about either Amy or Lena, but that was unnecessarily mean.
Really? Mean?
Amy schumer: “I used to date Hispanics but now I prefer consensual”
Oh and. ..her being the entire other side of that convo w/ Lena re: Odell Beckham,though Lena took all the heat. She wasn’t chatting with herself. …: /
Stop. We don’t have to handle every blonde white women with kid gloves, no matter how vile their behavior.
And her clothing remains unflattering. Deal.
Agree Timbuktu. In general the tone seems kind of nasty lately.
Most of the anti-Hillary people I come across are critical of her for being hawkish and beholden to Wall Street. But I tend to discuss politics with people who are to the left of the Democrats.
That’s what worries me too…I voted for Bernie and my main concern with Hillary is her hawkish ways. There is also her connections to Wall Street, the issue with fracking, her sketchy history, etc. I think my concerns are valid (as do many people who feel the same). All the ads I see are anti Trump, I would rather see her put out ads that highlight her strengths – I think we all know Trump is a terrible choice, I want her to highlight her history (not for me, I know it I have friends running her campaign) but for others who might not
co-signed
It’s interesting because every reason Amy states for people not liking Clinton isn’t at all why a lot of people don’t like Clinton. It feels like she’s recycling the very old criticisms of her as First Lady, and ignoring all of the actual concerns people have. Certainly there’s still some people who think that stuff, but there’s also a large group that couldn’t care less about her home life and don’t like her policy, the email leaks, her family’s foundation, or her strong corporate ties. Whether you agree or not, those are “substantial” issues, not this “baking cookies” nonsense.
The “baking cookies nonsense” wasn’t really about her home life. It was about her role as FLOTUS and how she wasn’t going to sit quietly on the sidelines. If anyone had/has concerns about her home life, it’s usually related to her marriage, not her baking skills.
She went with that example to illustrate her “for so long” point, I’m fairly sure.
Yep, I see this deflection from Hillary supporters all the time. They simply try to lump all legitimate cristicism of Hillary into the bullshit sexist reasons people don’t like her. Hillary is a terrible candidate for legitimate reasons. She has horrible foreign policy judgment (Iraq, the Kyl-Lieberman bill, Syria, Libya, Honduras) along with her pro-Wall Street record make many people concerned about her presidency.
“Argument By Selective Reading:
making it seem as if the weakest of an opponent’s arguments was the best they had. Suppose the opponent gave a strong argument X and also a weaker argument Y. Simply rebut Y and then say the opponent has made a weak case.
This is a relative of Argument By Selective Observation, in that the arguer overlooks arguments that they do not like. It is also related to Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension), in that the opponent’s argument is not being fairly represented.”
An Amy interview where she does not say anything racist. Wow!
does she also indentify as “non-racist”? like everyone should? like every sane person? then maybe she needs to learn that a label itself is meaningless.
she also does not understand that there are many women who do not call themselves feminists. mostly because of white feminists like her.
I think it’s her posture. The same thing happened with her Met Gala look; it looked worse because she was standing up like Quasimodo. 😉
Dildo covered in Cheeto dust. I love it! I’m not sure who Amy talks to, as I haven’t heard the cookie baking thing from anyone. Most people complain about Hillary’s Wall Street connections, shady foundation dealings, and now all the crap with the email. But to be honest, most of my friends, who are smart, educated feminists, dislike Hilary because of her husband, and her condoning, and in some cases defending, his reprehensible treatment of women. I really don’t know anyone voting for trump, but they really don’t want to vote for Hillary either.
“Dildo covered in Cheeto dust.”
Is that better than a pear wrapped in pantsuit? 😉
Please with the false equivalency.
The cookie thing is a reference to her time as First Lady. There’s a cookie tradition, and First Ladies are aupposed to bake cookies and share their cookie recipe, but if I recall correctly (I was very young), Hillary doesn’t bake and didn’t continue this tradition.
It was one of many sexist stereotypes used against her, to paint her as “wrong” for such a domestic role. But she used her role to focus on women’s and children’s rights, from international education diplomacy to health care and food stamp initiatives for American moms.
I’m not sure Hillary meant the “I’m not going to bake” literally. I think she just meant that she wasn’t going stay hidden/subservient in her role as FLOTUS.
As an interesting note, my father doesn’t like Clinton for many reasons (he hates Trump too), but he brings up her treatment of Monica Lewinski during that whole scandal as a chief point against her personally, independent of her politics. That she was eager to throw this young woman under the bus for her husband’s poor behavior just shocked my father. I find it funny because he’s a old curmudgeon in many ways, but the stark imbalance of power in that relationship and the subsequent treatment of Monica by Hilary, indeed both Clintons, really disgusted him.
Then this article may be interesting for your father:
http://yourdailyshakespeare.com/7522-2/equalities
Fascinating reading as I didn’t know much about the Clintons considering other sexual harrasment victims apart from Lewinski
she looks like she’s holding in a poop. or you know when its around your period time and you feel that unexpected clot squish out and you have no liner… sorry for the graphic but she just looks all that uncomfortable and painful rolled into one.
Her shoes are nice though
WOW! Amy has so many opinions on many many topics. I, for one, feel quite fortunate that she shares her existential wisdom so freely and often so that we might hold the key to unlocking the secrets to the mysteries of life on our sweet Earth. Surely she has to rest sometime. We do have the enigmatic Smith Children to fill any void caused by a brief respite.
Yep. She’s very self-important, isn’t she? I often wonder if it’s the narcissistic nature of the entertainment business and entertainers in general that encourages this kind of thinking.
I can’t stand it when people pretend they don’t understand why others refuse the title of Feminist. You may disagree with their reasoning, but its wholly disingenuous to pretend the dictionary’s definition of Feminist is all there is to it. I’m sorry, but I live in a world that recognizes nuance and the truth “saying is not doing”. Or more aptly “saying you want equality for women doesn’t mean what you are actually espousing constitutes equality”.
I fully agree with you.
No, what she says about Clinton is NOT dead on. It’s a terrible generalisation and reductive. There are a lot of things wrong with Hilary, and not all people who disagree with her have nothing meaningful to say. Disagreeing with Hilary isn’t always about ‘women-hate’. She has a problematic record with the Clinton Foundation, disregarding rules, cozy with big banks and foreign dictators.
On a side note this dress looks uncomfortable. Like it would be hard to move around without the straps constantly shifting. The hemline is also a tad too short to be comfortable.
Reductive is the exact word! I’m a woman and not in any way a Trump supporter, and I find the idea of either one of them as POTUS to be chilling.
Other than Hillary backed a coup in Honduras that got indigenous leaders killed, I guess that’s ok since Hillary is a woman.
Neither does Amy Schumer.
I was about to say the same thing. 😉
A lot of the people who can’t say why they hate HRC, hate her because of the lies that have been broadcast about her all these years. That stuff just sits in the back of their minds. Even my MIL who is very liberal called her a b*tch but couldn’t say why. People have essentially been programmed to hate her. The latest round of accusations revolve around things that other people have been doing for years. It’s just a big deal because she did it and because the media can’t find anything to compare her to Trump without looking unfair and unbalanced.
That is completely untrue. There is a long list of legitimate criticism for Hillary from her supporting the Honduras coup, to her callously wanting to send child refugees back to their home countries without due process, to her support of arming groups in Syria and a no-fly zone over Syria, to her lobbying and support for the Welfare Reform and Crime Bill as First Lady. Her voting for the Banruptcy Bill and then lying about what was in it. And that is the tip of the iceberg.
Well here’s the deal, Twodollars. Trump has never served the public a day in life so we can’t troll the Internet for criticisms to find out how he handled political hot potatoes, can we? I doubt he would have done any better. In fact, I’m pretty sure he would have done worse. And thanks for bringing up the stuff from her tenure as FLOTUS. Isn’t that what I said in the beginning of my comment? Some people just hate HRC for being HRC (and I did say some, not all). Some hate that she stuck by her husband and that she didn’t comfort Lewinski (because spouses do that ALL the time when they are cuckolded, right?). Some hate the smug look on her face. Im not 100% happy with her decisions, but I can understand why she did the things she did. I don’t think I’d be able to say the same for Trump.
Really how much did she get paid first and second why doesn’t she try to take Hillary down and find out for herself if it’s all peaches n cream? before she speaks like she knows it ALL…
Man! I was such a Schumer fan in the beginning, but she had to plop herself down with that horrid troll Dunham and that was it for me! And her HRC denial is so disappointing…obviously TRUMP can’t be president, but lets not pretend that HRC is the second-coming. She is just more qualified and seemingly more sane than her opponent.