Kim Kardashian is the world’s most fascinating woman. Cue eye rolling, snarling and a list of other women more worthy of the title but that’s why she’s so fascinating. Regardless of how she became famous or sustains it, the level of hate she receives transcends anything she’s done or will ever do. So correction: Kim Kardashian isn’t the world’s most fascinating woman, it’s how she makes people feel which is fascinating.
In case you missed it, Kim Kardashian uploaded a nude selfie to her Twitter account and people got mad. This also happened to coincide with International Woman’s Day and a few celebrities banded together to condemn the selfie. The fact that this occurred on International Women’s Day changes nothing. The argument is the same on any other day, but it being International Women’s Day highlighted the conversation. All over the world women are fighting against being controlled, from what they can wear on their bodies to the way it looks.
Do you have to praise Kim Kardashian for being naked? Of course not, but seeing the same self-described feminists praise Lena Dunham, Amy Schumer or Chelsea Handler for being naked and then condemning Kim seems hypocritical. What’s the difference between this:
Comedy doesn’t immediately scream ‘Nudity and coffee’ but Amy Schumer’s comedy does cover feminist issues such as women taking control of their bodies and image. Lena Dunham even uses the #freethenipple hashtag, which was created to oppose Instagram’s nudity policies that deem women’s nipples as pornographic and in need of censorship. The hashtag is literally based on taking control of women’s body’s; so how is it one women’s freedom but another is called a slut? Which naturally brings us to the next revelation: there’s no such thing as a talented slut!
In response to Kim’s selfie Chloe Grace Moretz tweeted:
@KimKardashian I truly hope you realize how important setting goals are for young women, teaching them we have so much more to offer than-
— Chloë Grace Moretz (@ChloeGMoretz) March 7, 2016
@KimKardashian – just our bodies.
— Chloë Grace Moretz (@ChloeGMoretz) March 7, 2016
In response Kim referenced Chloe’s NYLON cover shoot:
Then P!nk weighed in:
— P!nk (@Pink) March 9, 2016
Mostly praise, but some were quick to remind her that she doesn’t go 10 seconds into one of her songs without stripping off:
— Mel 📸 (@BillboardMel) March 9, 2016
When discussing their hate for Kim Kardashian many people reference the fact that she is famous for nothing. That begs the question: if she became an actress or musician, would she still be a slut? On many occasions, Kim has been called a whore for selling images of her naked body and built a career from nudity. Based on that logic, is selling your body for money a form of prostitution? What about an actress posing nude to promote an upcoming film, isn’t that exactly the same thing?
What do we call entertainers who sell sex for profit? Would they not be whores too, or does is excuse you for being talented? Does it mean for a singing releasing a nude picture is merely another facet of your talent?
Tits are tits whether they can sing or not.
These photos were from a 2014 shoot with Esquire. The same year Jennifer Lawrence was featured in the period drama Serena, Hunger Games: Mockingjay: Part 1 and X-Men: Days Of Future Past – none of the above have anything to do with Lawrence being in her underwear.
It’s fair to say that the majority of women in the entertainment industry – actresses and singers, not scriptwriters and producers – do photo shoots like these. They’re never considered bad role models. No one ever worries about how their children will feel. This is seen as “powerful” or “confident”. You can debate whether this is true but what can’t be debated is that these women promote their products as they please.
So to call something like this prostitution is a gross misunderstanding of prostitution and the type of outdated view that suggests every woman must be The Virgin Mary.
What about the models? There’s more to modelling than standing around and being full of contempt, besides the body pressure, there’re all sorts of training that stop just anyone from being a model. At face value this:
Doesn’t look all that different from this:
Many models be it catwalk or swimsuit, spend a large part of their career naked. It’s either considered art, part of the job or not mentioned at all. Again it’s different for Kim while she may not be a model in the traditional sense when she’s modelling she’s a model regardless of how you feel.
The truth is all hate levelled at her is based on a dislike for her and her exclusively. Trying to make it about talent or protecting the kids is just simply bullshit. Furthermore, how about raising your own kids, instead of expecting celebrities or do your job for you? It’s fine to dislike her, it’s even fine to hate her, but you shouldn’t slut-shame her because you don’t like her.
So, the “famous for nothing” argument is redundant. For example, what is Kate Middleton famous for other than being married to Prince William and having his kids? Some would say: she donates to charity, so does Kim. Kate has degrees – fair enough, but does that mean anyone without a degree are they sluts for taking a nude selfie?
That’s where it politely comes down the class. You’ve heard the phrase: “She has no class; Kate does, she’s got a tonne.” But raise your hands if you were aware of her charitable work and degrees before William decided to put a ring on her finger.
Kim is a divining rod for feminism. It’s all well and good retweeting Lena Dunham when she talks about equal pay, but if your reasons for hating Kim are because she’s naked all the time, you may have to check if you’re actually the feminist you claim to be and not just a fan of Dunham. You only need to examine the difference in reaction to Rihanna’s nude’s leaking versus Jennifer Lawrence’s to note that many so-called feminists felt: Rihanna was being trashy but Jennifer was clearly a victim.
You know those rape apologists you hate so much? The ones that say things like ‘She deserved it, she’s a slut, look at what she was wearing?’ You don’t agree with them do you? Well, they’re also the same people who call her a slut, threaten women with rape on Twitter and are the same people feminism seems to be against. So maybe a closer examination of the people you side with might poke holes in your own logic.
And finally, the other embarrassingly weak argument is: “I hate seeing her all over my timeline”. Get off social media then? Oh, you use social media to stay in touch with friends and family? Why not email then? And what about Snapchat, Twitter, Instagram? Are those ways of staying in touch with your family too? No, you want to post selfies and tweet the mindless drivel that runs through your brain and that’s your right to do so; and you don’t need a Grammy/Oscar/Nobel Prize do you? No one cares what you had for lunch and the gym isn’t a new concept, so we don’t need an update every time you go, so why do you even pay Kim any mind when it’s interrupting the equally banal sentiments you constantly spout?
The biggest irony is the only way you can see too much of Kim Kardashian is if you’re on social media too much. The people who complain about Kim Kardashian are the people who do the same vacuous shit she does, it’s just that when you post your selfies no one cares.
So how about next International Women’s Day we all encourage women to do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies and mind our own equally vain, vacuous business.