So, let me get this straight.
Kim Kardashian and Emily Ratajkowski posted a joint topless nude selfie on Instagram this morning and we’re all meant to sit back, have a look at the black stripe over their boobs, their middle fingers in the air and that omnipresent bathroom mirror and say, “Oh, Thank God for female empowerment. How empowering. Just look at those two women empower. I need to get me some of these empowerment black strip things. Thank you Kimmy, you have made me see the empowerment light.”
Last time Kim K did this she tweeted that, “It’s so important that we let women express their sexuality and share their bodies.”
If it has to do with a woman and we put the words empowering, liberation and control in there, it’s all totally okay. Don’t go putting shade on that empowering female parade by “judging” Kimmy for getting her gear off. If you dare judge a woman who is exercising her God given nude empowerment you simply don’t get it. Just look at what Kim K said to Bette Midler when she questioned the last nude selfie:
Yeah, that equals empowerment to me. Two privileged women in LA (BTW: who have more clothes than some department stores) whose life success has been based on what they look like, topless in a bathroom, with nothing to wear, giving the world the finger.
Send them to gender studies at Oxford University STAT. They have so much to contribute to the discourse. Or, more importantly for gender studies and feminism, let’s send them into the bedrooms of young women across the world to talk about the power of their bodies. The power of all sorts of different shaped, differently used, amazing bodies that will never be perfect but could get you on a basketball team or to work, the beach, to a party with really, really good friends where you laugh and talk even though you are four whole kilograms bigger than you think you should be and your eyebrows aren’t perfect, and your skin isn’t flawless and your stomach isn’t flat and your arms don’t look good without sleeves.
Oh, that’s right, they are in their bedrooms already. Telling our daughters how empowering it is to look exactly like they do and take a nude selfie while you are at it.
Kim’s nude selfies are not about feminism. They are not about liberation or empowerment. They are not about female inclusion. They are about female exclusion. They are about selling the Kardashians. They are about celebrating the “right” type of body – thin, flat stomachs, big boobs kind of like a blow up Barbie.
They are about screwing with the minds of young women who look at them (because they can’t help but look, they are everywhere, all the time) and think so that is what female liberation looks like.
Kim K’s nude selfie will get attention, it will get clicks, it will allow the Kardashians to keep charging advertisers $200,000 to $400,000 for one Instagram post alone. It will keep a woman’s value stuck in that awfully fragile and mean and energy sucking world of how they look, not who they are as people.
Vive la Kardashians. They are taking women, one “empowering” selfie at a time, to the very worst place inside herself.
That’s not empowerment. That’s two, very privileged, mean girls in a bathroom taking pictures of themselves and giving the world the finger.
Watch as we explain the Kardashian vs. Blac Chyna feud below.
Top Comments
I have to say it is quite shocking that people actually condone this as a legitimate act of feminism- I can pretty much guess why the guys are all up for nude pictures (keep it up ladies, strive for the world where women walk about nude in the name of feminine empowerment, WOOT, thinking that sensitization is the way to go even as pornography has become so accessible, and complain all you want about getting creepy stares, or how you ladies are getting raped- you must understand that not everyone is capable of controlling their urges; if the possibility of getting away scot free exists, gamblers will take that chance; and laws and social norms are not to be taken for granted, because they do not dictate behaviors; notice how running someone down with a car is a crime, etc., etc., but still people do it, so you have to look left, then right before crossing the street, if you want to increase your chances of surviving the walk across the road). Did Margret Thatcher need to pose nude to be elected Prime Minister? Did Mother Theresa have to give the middle finger while parading her exposed vagina in public to teach the world of humility and compassion? Nay! The world is turning into a cesspool of poorly formed opinions and bigoted beliefs because feminism is so misunderstood to be equivalent to prancing nude for the entertainment of the masses, and leading a reprobate lifestyle of sex and drugs, when the fundamentals of it are so simple: No sexual inequality that denies a woman from becoming the best she can be. Thank goodness for this article for attempting to bring the dialogue of feminine empowerment back on track by unmasking the ulterior motives of starlets who stand to gain nothing from the movement (they are already swimming in money from the very profession that discriminates; it's easy for the winners to simply show their breasts and little else), save for advertising income and wider fame- nudity sells very well, after all, it all started with a sex tape.
And to those who say feminism is letting a woman do what she wants to do, have much thinking to do; feminism in itself is an opinion that demands to have existing social infrastructure modified in a certain way, so to say that women should be allowed to do what they want to do is just very lazy, of superficial value to the discussion of feminine empowerment and just an egregious, inaccurate interpretation of what feminism is. And for those who cited sex without stigma to be something of feminine empowerment, think again: while long ago such women were commonly referred to as sluts, prostitutes and whores, the stigma of having multiple sexual partners are, to name a few, the increased likelihood of having contracted a sexual disease, the increased likelihood of cheating/betrayal, the increased threat to social cohesion, the denigration of the collective value of a woman's body (supply and demand), and the distinct indignity suffered by those who are lumped into the stereotype that some girls are loose, so all girls are loose by shifting social attitudes.
Women themselves aren't going to get anywhere by isolating their self worth to their physical selves and limiting feminism to just exposing their breasts and freedom to bare their naked selves, while comparing so pettily over literal, direct interpretations of inequality being women should be exactly treated as men, like showing off their nipples in public and yet not be treated completely as a dude; men didn't get to where they are by showing off the size of ding dongs, they invented, created, and experimented such that their efforts have materially contributed to the advancement of mankind, basically, existing social expectations of men were shaped by men of the past and of their achievements, and changing expectations of the role of women in society is in a large part thanks to likes of Marie Curie and Florence Nightingale- individuals who have made substantial achievements.
A lot of people pretend not to understand, but it's in the (Victorian-era :)) definition, "the fair(er) sex". We have to treat them as such, there's a clear (and natural) destinction.
If you're a guy, what's the worst thing that can happen if things go (very) wrong: a few nights in the hospital, or a couple months locked up, depending on how bad we're talking about.
For girls, well let's not -even- talk about it... Why would we? We love women and want to protect them, what's wrong with that - just, don't ask a feminist. xD
I'm really disappointed at Mamamia for posting this article. Yes, we need to be aware of our privilege and entitlement but it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to push others down in order to boost ourselves up. I feel like we can make a case for important aspects of feminism without denigrating others.