THERE’S nothing remarkable about the recent Emma Watson Vanity Fair shoot. Featuring images of the former Harry Potter star in a buttoned-up fencing suit or posing in a 1940s jacket with an arrow, it contains relatively little flesh.

Yet one shot– in which a white rope cape only minimally covers Watson's breasts – triggered an internet storm, with some accusing the actor of bad feminist behaviour and hypocrisy. The latter accusation mostly derived from the fact that Watson has been carving out a role as feminist spokesperson for her generation. In 2014, she very vaguely criticised the highly sexualised videos for Beyonce’s LP, saying she felt “conflicted” about it, though ultimately she came round to saying how much she idolised the singer’s feminism.

Defending her Vanity Fair shoot last week, Watson said: "Feminism is about giving women choice. It's about equality ... I really don't know what my t**s have to do with it." She also said she was “confused” by the criticism.

On one level it’s easy to see why Watson found it confusing. After all, the image itself is pretty standard. A bit revealing, but not too much; familiar, and really quite unremarkable.

And that, in many ways, is the problem. This is the way Vanity Fair has often tended to photograph women, whether it be Kate Moss wearing little but gloves, boots and a hat, Margot Robbie in a bikini, or the countless spreads by photographer Annie Leibovitz, whose Hollywood covers have mostly delivered actresses in either semi-undress or a flouncy gowns. Think of Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson nakedly sprawled around a besuited Tom Ford for the 2006 Hollywood issue.

Such photo shoots say a lot about the world celebrities live in and the pressures they are under.

Vanity Fair itself seems to exist, like many magazines, to ogle women. It’s almost as if it’s so written into its identity and history that it just can’t help itself. Even last year its cover feature on Australian actress, Margot Robbie, was branded “sexist” and “misogynistic”. Rich Cohen, who interviewed the star, wrote fawningly: “I don’t remember what she was wearing, but it was simple, her hair combed around those painfully blue eyes. We sat in the corner. She looked at me and smiled.”

And the magazine, of course, reflects a wider culture in which women remain valued primarily as bodies and beauties. It’s part of a society in which it’s not hard to connect the dots, from the magazines shoots to the red carpet – in its own way a platform that revolves around what is revealed of women’s bodies – and the beauty industry, which uses these women’s faces to sell itself.

The women who participate in this, I suspect, have very little choice, other than dropping out altogether. They may frame the decisions they do make – not wearing too much make-up, or only revealing half a breast – as choice, but the system is bigger than them. It lays the tracks. And in the industry in which Watson works, those tracks take women down red carpets, onto magazine covers, and into territories where the choices are mostly around how they look, the creation of their image. It must be hard to be a female star in Hollywood and have a feminist outlook.

So when Emma Watson says that “feminism is about choice”, I’m surprised and a little taken aback. She seems an intelligent young woman. What is she doing reducing feminism to such a cartoonish slogan? She, of all people, must know that her success in her chosen industry depends on the way she performs what it is to be a woman.

We all live in worlds where the tracks are already laid, where our choices are to some extent dictated by what is available to us. When we’re concerned about our own financial survival, or that of dependents, we are more likely to take the opportunities that are there, deliver what it seems the world wants of us. Look at the statistics and trends in income, work patterns and occupational stratification, and the idea of individual choice starts to fade from view. Ours is a world which seems to offer endless choice, but where most people’s real choices – particularly women's – are limited.

Yet, there is one choice women can make – we can choose to push for whatever societal changes it might take to change the tracks. And to be fair, to some extent Emma Watson is doing that. She did a good thing for feminism when she said “feminism has become an unpopular word” and somehow helped popularise it and extend its reach. She did well to use her global fame, with the campaign He For She, to get men involved in gender equality.

Can she continue to do it while staying on the tracks that will bring her fame and fortune within her industry? I have my doubts, but I wish her good luck.