Not long ago, I found an interesting blog post about furniture designed to look like parts of women’s bodies. As the title of the article clearly states, the furniture was “inspired by the most attractive female forms”–but of course, that means conventionally attractive breasts, buttocks, legs, and high-heeled feet.

The part that makes me laugh about this kind of art is that it is always described as unique, or modern, or ground-breaking. Somehow, people seem to think that art like this is just amazingly new and special.

Now, I won’t argue that it’s not art, mostly because I’m not really an artist, and I don’t think I have the right to judge either way. But I can definitely say that there is absolutely nothing new or unique or groundbreaking about this kind of art. Why? Because all this art does is cut women up into bunches of little tiny pieces based upon the only parts of their body that are supposedly worth something. It also furthers the idea of what is conventionally attractive, while undermining every single variation from that norm: large, perfectly round breasts, an ass that isn’t too big but it’s round and firm, long legs with thin thighs and even thinner calves, and feet that don only high heels at all times. Every single other part of the woman–her hands, her eyes, her brain, even her vagina, in this artist’s rendering–is totally irrelevant and isn’t even considered “beautiful.” And these ideals–of women consisting of only a few body parts that must be absolutely perfect-looking–are mainstream, totally normal and accepted, and not unique or fresh at all whatsoever.

A piece of news going around today (via Feministing) is that “Gold’s Gym has declared July ‘Cankles Awareness Month.’” It’s a prime example of cutting women up into tiny pieces. Everything about you, even your ankles, has to look perfect. You could have everything else going for you: no wrinkles on your face, a flat stomach, big perky breasts, labia minora that don’t stick way out, a bleached anus, etc. etc. etc.; but if you have cankles, forget about it, you are just plain ugly. That one piece can ruin the whole picture. Every little chunk must be perfect.

The furniture this artist has created just perpetuates everyday norms and ideals, and it annoys me that people run around going “Ohhh, it’s so new and original!” No. It’s absolutely mainstream and normative. Come on, artists! Shake things up a bit! I get sick of seeing conventionally attractive female-chunks being thrown around and called “original.” If you want to be original, depict a woman with “un-perfect” body parts as a whole being with a brain and feelings! Even though it’s the reality of the world (not every woman is perfect, like this art seems to want; and every woman has a brain and feelings, like this artist seems to deny), it’d be pretty original and surprising for a piece of art. And isn’t that a good thing?

Yesterday, my younger sister gave birth to a totally cute little boy named Braidan. Fittingly, as we sat around in her hospital room, we watched bits and pieces of a marathon of I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant. This show is pretty interesting, if dramatic, especially considering the responses you see from people who hear just the title alone: “How can a woman not know she is pregnant?! How stupid can you be??” Even the people present yesterday asked those questions, including a nurse who came into the room.

The show, I think, does a pretty good job of explaining why the woman did not know she was pregnant. She never had regular periods anyway; she lost weight rather than gained it; she didn’t have any cravings; she was told she could not have children. I’m sure that if these people watched the show, they’d be surprised and yet interested that yes, truly, a woman can not know that she is pregnant.

In any case, I think that people’s common “WTF!” reactions to this show are rather unsurprising. Our culture is pretty out of touch with women’s bodies and biological functions. There are misconceptions everywhere about periods, pregnancy, vaginal fluids, the vagina itself, the vulva and labia, breasts, and so on. A lot of people are sadly unaware of the vast diversity and variations present across all women. It seems that we are programmed to believe that all women’s bodies are the same, that they all operate in the precise same way, each part doing a precise job exactly the same way, every single time, like an assembly line.

Maybe life would be a lot easier for some women if our bodies did work that way, but I think the diversity is pretty cool. I think it’s interesting that some women have labia minora that stick way out, and some have labia minora that hide inside. Some women have pretty evenly sized breasts; others have breasts that are different cup sizes from each other. Some women have a clockwork period, while other women haven’t had a period in months. Every woman is unique. Our society needs to be more in touch with that fact–and more in touch with the realities of women’s bodies: that they are not all the same, that the diversity between them is not a sign of error or illness, but it in fact unique and beautiful.

This article in the Guardian writes about a new documentary, made by model Sarah Ziff and Ole Schell, about life as a model in the world of high fashion. In it, they detail the realities many models face. The modeling industry, as they note, is one of the least regulated industries in the world; models have virtually no voice or power to make their own decisions, and remain unprotected by laws. Ziff tells us that twenty-hour workdays are commonplace; days off are virtually nonexistent. One girl compares modeling to “becoming living dolls,” with no control over their lives and insanely thin often

“not because [they've] been starving [themselves] but because there’s literally no time to eat.”

However, far too often we focus only on a model’s weight, and the potential influence this may have on their audience. When we ignore the actual experience of the model herself – and this is easy to do, as she rarely has a voice – do we not also treat her as an object by refusing to see that she, too has a life outside of the picture we see in magazines?

Sexual abuse in the workplace is common, and usually ignored or even taken for granted. Some elite, well-protected photographers regularly harass the models, and expect to be serviced sexually by them. In doing so, they objectify their models in every sense; they make them objects by putting them on paper, but also treat them as such, using and consuming them. Far too often, the models remain unprotected by the agencies that should have prevented abuse; in an example, Sarah Ziff cites

“a 16-year-old model who complained when a 45-year-old photographer made a pass at her. Her agency said she should have slept with him.”

Many models are as young as twelve or thirteen, and are frequently expected to strike sexy poses or be photographed in the nude, in work that in my opinion sometimes borders on child pornography. But because it is under the guise of fashion or advertisements, it is considered ‘artistic’ and thus legitimized. Who protects the children here? The answer is no one. There are few laws to regulate the fashion industry, and the fact that top models work internationally complicates this – shooting in remote places, many laws simply would not apply. Even if they did – who would enforce them? And many models travel alone to photo shoots, so who would or could protect them? When they are so young, it is also unlikely that they know their rights.

To me, this entire issue also puts shows such as ‘America’s Next Top Model’ in yet another, unfavorable light. How do former models such as Heidi Klum and Tyra Banks promote modeling to the young, ambitious wannabe models they purport to be training? The show is, after all, based on the premise that girls want to be in this glamorous industry, and it is clear that few are truly aware of the realities that await them there. It is also built on the idea that the host will prepare the candidates for the modeling world, and yet there is no sign of preparing them for the abusiveness that likely awaits them. Yes, they hint at the unforgiving features of the modeling industry: like the long, stressful days the candidates must go through in hopes of becoming a top model, or the reproving looks and comments one candidate received when she refused to do a photo shoot in the nude. However, the hosts of these shows always, whether implicitly or explicitly, tell the candidates that to be truly successful in the business, the only thing that matters is pleasing the photographer, at almost any cost. You have to be an obedient doll to be a top model, to enter this seemingly glamorous world in which you are, at best, disposable. If you don’t comply, you don’t get work; and as a model, you are a clothes hanger, no more, no less. You have no voice; you depend on the agency, the photographer, the designer. Speak up and you will be thrown away.

This is why some models have begun to form unions. As of now, they are not very large, and not very powerful. But one can only hope that unions for models will become commonplace, so that they can negotiate better protection for themselves.