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.

Carnal Nation reports that “Scottish Women’s Aid, an organization dedicated to helping the victims of domestic abuse, has flatly refused a £600 ($1000) gift from 11 women who posed semi-nude for a calendar.” A spokesperson from Scottish Women’s Aid states, “We are opposed to the sex industry, and we have an issue with women removing clothes” as their reasoning for rejecting the donation. Certainly, the organization has every right to deny gifts from anyone they choose, but their reasoning does not sit well with me, especially coming from a feminist organization, and especially after reading that many of the women who posed for the calendar had been victims of domestic violence.

Generally, I’m a member of the boat that says that women should be able to define what they find to be empowering. We see this debate often regarding Muslim women’s modest dress, or hijab. Some people argue that the hijab is always demeaning to women, that it only serves to perpetuate the notion that women are naturally immodest and that men are inherently unable to resist their beauty. On the other hand, proponents of the hijab argue that wearing modest clothing creates an atmosphere in which women can be treated as human beings, rather than as pretty objects for men to look at. From my point of view, each perspective has its merits, and each woman should be able to choose to dress modestly or not depending on her opinion, without repercussions.

I have a similar attitude when it comes to nudity. Certainly, the porn industry can be incredibly degrading to women, especially in places where health and safety regulations are not enforced. On the other hand, nudity can be very empowering. If a woman feels confident, comfortable, and safe enough to take off her clothing of her own free will, it means that she has claimed control over her own body, and she is simply allowing other people to look at her body, as she chooses.

I feel like the assumption of Scottish Women’s Aid is that nudity is always demeaning to women. But isn’t that perspective harmful in and of itself? It implies that women always lack control over their own bodies. It takes agency away from women before they even have a chance to claim it–and in the name of feminism, no less. On some level, of course, I agree with their perspective. At times, female nudity can be demeaning. When female nudity is forced, or when the nude women are presented purely as sexual objects, it does take agency away from women. Some women take their clothes off merely for men to look at them, or out of pressure or coercion from men. But women can and should also have the freedom to choose when and for whom (if anyone other than themselves) they would like to remove their clothing. I think that women who make this choice out of a sense of self-confidence and self-respect are empowered women.

I will admit it: I enjoy watching Jon and Kate Plus Eight, and as such, I’ve been hearing a lot about all the drama surrounding their and their children’s lives. Of course, most of what I hear about has to do with Kate Gosselin. She’s a mean bitch! She’s a terrible mother! All she cares about is fame and her book tour!

I get really sick of hearing about it, especially when I am trying to sit peacefully in my own living room and my family members rant on and on about how much of a “bitch” Kate is literally every time she opens her mouth.

There are a number of allegations about some “cruel” things that Kate has been doing to her children, including spanking a child, threatening her children, and denying one daugher a drink from a bottle of water upon request. Supposedly, all of these terrible and horrific crimes make Kate Gosselin more monster than mother. Supposedly, all that Kate cares about is her work: her writing and her book tours. Supposedly, Kate “uses” her children for financial gain.

Now, it’s hard to say what really goes on in these people’s lives. Their lives are so public, yes, but there are still a lot of private elements that have not yet been revealed. But I get very tired of the constant accusations against not just Kate, but against all mothers in this country. Because the way that people talk about Kate, calling her a terrible mother and a bitchy wife, is the same way that people throughout the US talk about every other woman who is a mother and a wife.

What Kate does on-screen is probably not much different from what plenty of other mothers do with their children in private. And especially considering the fact that this woman has eight children of young ages to worry about, I’m not surprised that she does get pissy once in awhile. I know I’d probably just throw myself out a window if I had to deal with that every day, on top of all the paparazzi and comments and constant judgment that occurs as a result of her being in the public eye.

I don’t really know the extent of Kate’s treatment of her children, but I’m sure that if it were anything truly damaging, her children would have been taken away a very long time ago. I personally am not an advocate of spanking or hitting, but plenty of parents (particularly those belonging to certain Christian religions, such as the Gosselins) do believe that spanking is an effective and acceptable means of punishment. I am positive that if Kate were brutally spanking or otherwise abusing her daughters, the entire world would know about it and the department of children and families would have swooped down to claim and protect the children the very second it had happened. I don’t think that minor spanking immediately constitutes child abuse. I found this article regarding Kate hitting her daughter and I have to say: plenty of mothers get stressed out and angry at their children and hit them.

Regarding Kate threatening her children: I think all mothers spew out threats. I think many mothers threaten their children in various ways on a daily basis. Why? Because children are children, and they do not listen, and when you have eight of them running around screaming, you need some way to bring some damn order to the household. Threatening your children is not some completely new and outrageous idea. I didn’t grow up in the greatest of environments, but there were plenty of times where my mother threatened to lock in my room, to leave me somewhere alone, to not let me eat dinner, and all sorts of other scary things. But it made me do what I had to do when others means would not have worked. I don’t think this is anything particularly disturbing.

Finally, Kate and the bottle of water issue. Supposedly Kate denies her thirsty daughter a sip of water. Sure, it’s not very nice, but guess what? Kids whine. A lot. Kids act like everything is a big deal, including thirst and hunger. I’m sure all mothers can agree that when it comes to dinner time and they are dealing with hungry kids, all they hear out of the kids’ mouths are “MOMMY I’M HUNGRRYYYYYY!!!!!!” over and over and over again. It’s not that they are literally starving. They’re just whiny kids. Kate’s situation here seems more a case of “whiny kid syndrome” than “bitchy, evil mother syndrome.”

Plus, the commentary really gets to me. According to one genius,
Reformed and recycled ugly fat chicks, like Kate, are the reason wife beaters has proliferated over the ages. We’ve all seen the real, non-TV Kate (well, at least the phucking losers who watch this show and somehow elevated her to be a constant subject on this board) and we all know it’s only a matter of time til she’s once again, a pig.

Oh, how nice! Because women have kids and become ugly, it’s somehow okay to abuse them! Fortunately, because they are fat, ugly pigs, they are dispensible, and no one really cares.

This is precisely what bothers me about the concerns over Kate. Sure, I don’t really know. Maybe she is an abusive mother and a terrible wife. But what irritates me is the way people talk about her–because it’s not just about her, it’s about every other woman who is married with children. Women are supposed to get married and have kids, but if they “let themselves go” while trying to balance children, a husband, a job, and whatever else, then automatically they are fat, ugly, stupid, and essentially worthless. I only stick up for Kate here as a way to stick up for every other mother who has had to put up with this constant judgment and second-guessing.

Another good example is my very, very good friend Samantha. Samantha got pregnant when she was nineteen and got married out of wedlock. Her husband at the time was a bum and would go out and cheat on her, come home drunk, and was constantly out of work due to his own laziness. Samantha spent her time caring the best she could for her two beloved daughters, walking back and forth to the grocery store because she didn’t have a car so that she could get her daughters their necessities. Sam gained some weight from having children and being stressed, and her husband hated her more and more for it. Sam, who is low-income and not particularly well-educated, found herself and her role as mother being judged by her neighbors, who falsely accused her of neglecting her children and called the police on her constantly. The department of children and families got involved, though after awhile, things were starting to look up.

One day, Sam made her usual trip to get milk and cereal for her daughters. “Dave,” she said to her husband, who was, as usual, hungover and half-asleep on the couch, “keep an eye on the girls for me.” He agreed, and Sam went to get cereal and milk. Half an hour later, she returned, only to find DCF at her house, accusing her of neglecting her children yet again. The social worker had shown up while Sam was out and Dave had fallen back asleep.

They took Sam’s daughters away, and they used “photographic evidence” of pictures of her daughters in the bathtub to accuse Sam of not only neglect, but sexual abuse as well. They placed the girls in foster care and separated them despite Sam’s wishes. Sam has not seen her daughters in nearly ten years, and will probably never see them again.

It’s a prime example of the judgments and expectations we place on mothers. We judge and question famous or privileged mothers, such as Kate, and low-income, disadvantaged mothers, such as Sam. Motherhood can never win, and yet is the role we must fulfill. No woman, from Kate to Sam, can ever be a perfect mother. Mothers will always make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes will be grave (the woman who, when her babysitter did not show up, was forced to go to work or lose her job; her children died in a fire while she went to work so they could at least have food), but grave mistakes happen all the time. Don’t we sometimes say it is a “grave mistake” when a man rapes or kills a woman, dubbing it a “crime of passion” instead of calling it what it is? Sure, some women are truly unfit to have children… just as some men are truly unfit to have children. But women who make everyday mistakes, such as stressed-out Kate Gosselin striking one of her children, or Sam leaving her children alone with an unreliable husband, do not deserve to be labelled as bitches, or evil mothers, or neglectful, or cruel. They are doing the best they can in a world that despises and yet needs them, and I think that Kate, Sam, and every woman beyond and in between needs to be respected for the enormous job they work hard to fulfill.

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.