A Bit Of Irony About The Feminist Fundamentalists Going After Matt Taylor For His Shirt
Great point by Siam Goorwitch on Metro/UK:
What's perhaps most ironic is that the people who pounced on Matt Taylor are the very same ones who argue that the continual focus on the outfit choices of powerful women is petty and undermines their status.
And then, despite having started so sensibly, she goes all off the rails:
Yes, it features scantily dressed women on it, but in week where the biggest story on the planet was a picture of Kim Kardashian's glistening naked arse with a f*cking champagne coupe balanced on it, I'd suggest that if we want to talk about harmful depictions of women, that should be our jumping off point.Not least because (sadly) I'm sure it was seen and admired by far more influential young minds that this incredible scientist in his supposedly offensive shirt.
Can someone please explain to me why the Kim Kardashian photo is a "harmful depiction" of a woman? I rather liked it because it reminded me of Jean Paul Goude's photos of Grace Jones.
On a side note: I love a woman who uses the word "arse."
Explain? Toots, I can't even sum up...
I did read some diatribes on Goude's previous works, and the presumed racism over the jungle fever therein-
I think it may have to do with the objectification of x thing by y person who shouldn't be doing that sort of thing.
OTOH, I do see some of the confusion inherent in the KimK shots being a good thing, while a guy in tats, and wearing a bad Hawaiian shirt made for him for his birthday, is bad because the pinups with guns on the shirt send the wrong message... to somebody.
Starting to be happier getting older, because I've reached the point where I can look ever my glasses and say "git offa my lawn..."
I do wonder what all this bs will lead to for my kids... sometimes every moment seems like a CF of epic proportions.
Course all those worthless tattooed guys with pinup shirts will be called on to defend again, should Putin start another war...
I guess that will be the comeuppance we get for paying attention to stupid sh*t.
SwissArmyD at November 15, 2014 10:04 PM
Aside from the argument that Kardshian owes her fame and fortune to sex work (sex tape, playboy, reality TV), which I have no moral qualms with, I dont see any other argument
lujlp at November 16, 2014 6:22 AM
Amy, some people found it too reminiscent of the hottentot venus exploitation stuff.
NicoleK at November 16, 2014 6:32 AM
I see it as taking back the big bottom!
Amy Alkon at November 16, 2014 8:13 AM
I think the main objection to Kim's pics is objectification. She's famous for having a big ass and having had her mother pimp out her sex tape. She's not famous for any real reason, just for her perceived attractiveness. And I think most feminists are trying to get people to judge women for who they are, not how they look. By those standards Kim has set feminism back 20 years.
Nick Gardner at November 16, 2014 9:58 AM
Why is the picture of Kim Kardashian objectionable?
Because it's a picture of Kim Kardashian.
Shannon at November 16, 2014 12:03 PM
The issue I have with Ms. Goorwich's comments is that it smacks of garden variety feminist collectivism and denudes women of their individuality as unique individuals in a grab for the self-appointed bully pulpit to speak on behalf of all women whether they agree or not.
Kim Kardashian's pruriently presented pronounced posterior pic is NOT a portrayal of WOMEN. It is a portrayal of ONE WOMAN. Singular, not plural. Words matter, which a professional writer and commentator should well know!
Its also an accurate portrayal of that one woman, what she's about, how she has marketed herself, and how SHE desires to be beheld. If OTHER WOMEN don't want to be portrayed that way they won't, for instance, grease up their bare bottoms and thrust them out the window for the world to see. Seems simple enough.
Kim Kardashian is shaking and selling what she has to sell -- she's a vacuous lowbrow culture icon and is clearly loving it. High maintenance and low-brow all at once. If Mrs. Goorwich doesn't want to join her, she won't. Problem solved. What is there to complain about?
David at November 16, 2014 12:10 PM
Okay, I admit I haven't looked at all of the KimK photos, but I think Goorwitch has her details wrong. There is a picture in which a champagne coupe is balanced on Ms. Kardashian's very fully-clothed posterior, with champagne flowing into it. There is another photo in which said posterior is naked and oiled, with no champagne accessories in sight. There is ANOTHER older photo in which a nude model -- NOT Kim Kardashian -- is shown balancing a champagne glass on her rear end, holding a gushing bottle that is arcing liquid into the glass, done by the same photographer. (The last image is somewhat controversial because the model in question is black and it's accused of trafficking in racial stereotypes.) As far as I know, KimK did not actually pose nude with a champagne glass on her derriere (though that probably would, in fact, have broken the Internet).
I admit…I do like that Tina Fey quote about Kim Kardashian that has been resurrected, the one that ends with "...who, as we know, was made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes."
marion at November 16, 2014 1:30 PM
I'm a bit surprised that I've seen so little comments on the KK photos that reveal the other side of the story. Since I'm *not* all about the bass, I was more interested in seeing those.
My reaction to the whole presentation, though, is that Ms. Kardashian is spectacular in the way that a volcano eruption is spectacular -- it's hard to look away while it's happening, but the end results are decidedly mixed. Maybe there is a fine line between hottie and circus freak.
Cousin Dave at November 17, 2014 1:35 PM
Cousin Dave,
Just remember, no matter how ugly or deformed you are you are somebody's kink. :->
There are 7 billion people on the planet. There is a good chance that at least 100,000 of them think you are sexy.
Ben at November 18, 2014 7:07 AM
I've always gotten a weird combo vibe off of KK as being both "high-maintenance" and "low-rent." She's an attractive woman with a penchant for being gauche, declasse, and quintessentially trailer-park tramp despite her wealth, wardrobe, and profile. Off course, that has its moments. Its just, for me, its very few moments.
David at November 18, 2014 8:26 AM
Leave a comment