I see there’s been controversy about Emily Ratajkowski. What is this about? Samantha, by email

Here’s what I think about Emily Ratajkowski: I think we should all think a lot less about Emily Ratajkowski. For those who think so little about her to the point they don’t even know who she is, allow me to catch you up. Ratajkowski is, well, I guess one would call her a model, but it’s a little more complicated than that. She is best known for appearing in the video for Robin Thicke’s once ubiquitous and now totally forgotten 2013 song, Blurred Lines, and since then she has done some acting but primarily made a career out of looking sexy. And sure, why not? You live your life, Emily.

Ratajkowski has always made a lot of hay about saying that she’s a feminist, and good for her! Always nice to see a young woman in the public eye embrace the label as opposed to spewing out some moronic brain porridge, such as, “I’m not a feminist – I love men” (side eyes, Shailene Woodley). Ratajkowski has done commendable work promoting Planned Parenthood, which she has described as her primary charity because of its work for women’s health, which is one thing, and possibly the only thing, Ratajkowski and I think alike on.

Anyway, Ratajkowski recently released – for reasons I really don’t have the strength to investigate too closely – a video, in which she is having sex with some linguine. Look, she is writhing orgasmically on a table in her underwear (and woollen gloves, confusingly) while rubbing pasta all over her oiled body – how the hell would you describe it? Ratajkowski posted said video on Instagram and declared that “female sexuality and sexiness, no matter how conditioned it may be by a patriarchal ideal, can be incredibly empowering for a woman if she feels it is empowering to her”. Which is quite a 2017 statement, so congrats, Emily, for tapping into the zeitgeist: if she believes it is empowering, it is empowering. No comment from the linguine, mind.

Anyway, this video then became “controversial”, which I guess was the point of it, when some random man on TV took it upon himself to declare Ratajkowski a “global bimbo”, which is just obnoxious, and added, “What Emily is doing is using this in the name of feminism. Don’t use the excuse it’s feminism because it’s not”, which has a little more merit.

Now, as a feminist, a woman and just a person with a functioning brain, I feel the temptation to side with Ratajkowski here, because, frankly, why should she put up with some stupid TV man saying to her, as he once did on Twitter, “Do you want me to buy you some clothes? You look freezing.” I mean, seriously. If this guy is feminism’s saviour then we’re in a lot worse shape than I thought, ladies.

But just because some guy is being a jerk to a woman it does not mean the woman is in the right. Or, to put it another way, just because she is doing something that is not feminist it does not mean that criticising her is in itself a feminist act. In other words, there does not always need to be a feminist in the room: both the TV guy and Ratajkowski can be in the wrong here. Yes, Ratajkowski is right that exercising her freedom of choice is a feminist act, but it does not then follow that the choice she makes is inherently feminist. After all, I could make the choice to be a surrendered wife – does that then mean being a surrendered wife is feminist? (Spoiler: no it doesn’t.)

Ratajkowski has since said, “Lol never said my video was a feminist statement”, so perhaps she found having sex with linguine less empowering than she expected? Well, at least it’s a step up from her take on the Blurred Lines video, in which she and other models danced topless alongside a fully-clothed Thicke, Pharrell Williams and T.I. Ratajkowski insisted the video was “feminist” when, in fact, it was a literal dictionary definition of the opposite of feminism. Look, feminism doesn’t need gatekeepers, but if a video featuring naked women being told, “I know you want it” by clothed men is “feminist”, then I think we can all agree that the word “feminism” has now become about as meaningless as “ironic” is in the oeuvre of Alanis Morissette.

I’ll be honest, I’m not sure why anyone would expect feminist statements from anyone who appeared in that Blurred Lines video, and I am fully including Thicke and Pharrell in that. It’s cool that Ratajkowski does work for Planned Parenthood but I think we dealt with the idea that stripping could be a feminist act back in the 90s and we really don’t need to rehash all that nonsense again. It’s OK, Emily! Not everything you do has to be feminist – it’s fine. But justifying everything you do as a feminist act is nonsense. Is shopping feminist? How about getting a massage? No and no. Feminism is about fighting for collective equality between the sexes, it is not about personal and individual “empowerment”. That is just making yourself feel good. And if having carnal knowledge of carbohydrates achieves that, hats off to you.

Post your questions to Hadley Freeman, Ask Hadley, The Guardian, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Email ask.hadley@theguardian.com.Post your questions to Hadley Freeman, Ask Hadley, The Guardian, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Email ask.hadley@theguardian.com.