In defense of Kim Kardashian and her critics

Celebrities create contention. They often appear to break social conventions when in fact they themselves are confined within them. This is entirely apparent in the case of Kim Kardashian’s “break the internet” shoot in Paper magazine.

Kardashian’s photos have been met with a mixed reaction. The responses tend to take one of two routes: they either criticize her for being a poor role model, or they cheer her on because “if you got it flaunt it, girl.”

For women who are critical of the never-ending onslaught of images like Kardashian’s, the old and worn gender stereotypes are dragged out.

One blogger asked: “Is it because we feel insecure when we look at perfectly lit, stunning bodies? Is it because we get jealous when others — maybe our partners — covet them?”

Uh, NO.

The response has nothing to do with the mental condition of Kardashian’s critics and everything to do with women being sick of the female body being used as a disposable object for enterprise. When women are incessantly objectified, the humanity of all women is undermined.

Porned up depictions of women’s bodies are no longer new, of course. Playboy has mass-distributed sexually objectifying media since the 1950s. It is hardly “contentious” for women in porn to get naked and oiled up in the name of free will, free choice and above all, free markets.

Yet Kardashian does not work in porn. Her image is the type of “soft porn” that is no longer niche and is instead integrated into mainstream media. Pornified, photo-shopped images are more widely circulated than ever before. You can hardly get out of bed in the morning without an Internet ad, TV commercial or newspaper article showing “soft porn” images of women.

So, in response, women are talking back, and rightfully so.

Women have long lived under the tyranny of a free market system that trades in their sexual objectification. And for decades, women have dealt with a media regime that makes objectified bodies is the dominant mode of our representation. Some argue that this is due to “sexual liberation,” but on the contrary, girls and women are increasingly dissatisfied. Sexual objectification is not only harming women’s quality of life but also their human rights. This is not mere hearsay but backed up by experimental evidence.

Women have the right to be pissed. This shit has gone too far, for too long. Kardashian is in the firing line because she is the current poster child for a long history of racist and sexist degradation that affects each and every woman.

Women’s anger may be misdirected — aimed at Kardashian rather than the complex network of industries behind her image — because she is the visible outcome and those industries are simply harder to take aim at. The issue is systemic, but Kardashian is one of its foremost representatives today.

Would Kardashian be widely recognized if she didn’t play into the rules of a racist and sexist media regime? Would she be talk of the Internet if she had instead given a fully clothed interview about her interest in social justice? Of course not. Kardashian is not the purveyor of sexism; she is just another one of its pawns. Women are not jealous, they are fed up.

Despite what the thinspo, fitness modeling, insta-genix or “belfie” crews try to argue, no clean-eating, cross-fit lifestyle is going to fix all of these problems. Because, as it turns out, women’s bodies are not the problem.

Women’s bodies — especially black women’s bodies — have been treated as “freak shows” for hundreds of years, since Saartjie Baartman, a South African woman, was toured around England so that people could gawk at her genitals and behind. Today, women are still expected to be on parade, as public property for everyone to view, judge, and rate.

The difference of course, is that today women are supposed to treat their bodies as a sideshow under the guise of “choice,” “confidence” and “sexuality.” While women may have won legal rights in recent decades, our right to be treated as humans and not objects is undermined at every step.

The historical obsession with women being pretty and demure is only compounded by today’s obsession with “sexy.” And sexual objectification is no longer limited to the world of pornography. Regular marketing easily outdoes Hugh Hefner’s porn empire today. As a result, pornography has had to seriously step up in order to differentiate itself from mass media, increasingly using violence rather than pleasure to define their product.

Historically, when women have spoken out against these issues they are sidelined, silenced, or punished. Not so long ago, women who did not quietly conform would be diagnosed as mentally ill. Freud was one of the first to recant the real issue of women’s sexual abuse and instead argue that female inadequacy lead to hysteria. Today’s branding of women as “insecure” and “jealous” is hardly an improvement on the sexism of yesteryear.

For industries that profit from the objectification of women, silence is a necessary tool. If women are silent they are assumed to consent. Pornography and objectification are potent tools for silencing women — Andrea Dworkin said:

“The civil impact of pornography on women is staggering. It keeps us socially silent, it keeps us socially compliant… pornography [is] a new institution of social control, a way of saying publicly to every woman: avert your eyes (a sign of second-class citizenship), look down, bitch.”

Silence is required complicity for many forms of violence against women’s bodies, including objectification and its close associates like plastic surgery. That’s why it’s so important that women don’t speak critically about Kardashian’s photo shoot, or the 6,000,000 other enhanced, photoshopped, and objectifying images that will circulate online today. “If you don’t like it don’t look” is an important catchphrase that silences women in a world of moving billboards and pornographic music videos televised in every gym, bar, and corner café.

If women spoke more openly about how dehumanizing, unrealistic, and harmful these images are, it might actually require industry to change. If women felt supported to fight back, it might actually cause a reduction in sales. If women weren’t told they are just insecure and jealous, they might be better placed to take this fight to the bottom line of business.

Listed companies cannot function without growth, which means our economy requires women’s repression and ongoing sexism. When women speak out against images like Kardashian’s “Break the Internet,” try to step out of the 1950s and recognize that women are not mentally deficient, they are, in fact, fighting for their own human rights.

 

Laura McNally is a psychologist, consultant, author, and PhD candidate. Her current work draws upon critical theory to examine the limitations of corporate social responsibility and liberal feminism. She blogs at lauramcnally.com.

 

Consider supporting our work with a donation!

Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy

Founder & Editor

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010 and has published work in numerous national and international publications, including New Statesman, Vice, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, I-D, Truthdig, and more. Meghan completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Lee

    There is also the silencing tactic of, “But she’s smart/strong, too! Do you have a problem with a smart/strong woman liking sex????”

    • Anomega

      So it doesnt matter how strong or smart a woman is, it doesnt matter what context its in, the simple fact that it appeals to male desire makes it oppressive, and it should not exist? How then can you say that such a brand of feminism is not directly opposed to male sexuality?

      • Meghan Murphy

        DEAR TROLLY,

        FOR THE LAST TIME (AS IF HAHA). IT IS NOT ABOUT SIMPLY ‘APPEALING TO MALE DESIRE’ (as in, a man finding a woman attractive is not THE problem) IT IS ABOUT OBJECTIFICATION. WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SEXUALITY. IF YOU CANNOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN ‘SEXUALITY’ AND OBJECTIFICATION THEN YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO PARTICIPATE IN CONVERSATIONS HERE.

        ALSO. WHETHER OR NOT A WOMAN IS ‘STRONG’ OR ‘SMART’ DOES NOT IMPEDE/IMPACT HER ABILITY TO BE OBJECTIFIED. LOTS OF STRONG AND SMART WOMEN ARE OBJECTIFIED.

        PLEASE EXCUSE ME NOW WHILE MY BRAIN EXPLODES. (A BRAIN IS SOMETHING MANY HUMANS HAVE INSIDE THEIR SKULLS. THEY OFTEN USE THEM FOR THINKING. GOOGLE IT.)

        • This is not the same troll at all! It’s anomega, not anonmega. So clearly, given the fact that the word “anus” is derived from “ano,” he is telling us now that he is a mega asshole.

        • Ha! Thanks for that Meghan.

        • jo

          I like you Meghan 😀

          I get immensively tired of such comments.
          Lots of men have a problem of seeing the difference between sexy and objectifying, because they find objectifying images sexy.

          • Meghan Murphy

            “Lots of men have a problem of seeing the difference between sexy and objectifying.”

            Yes, they do. And it’s incredibly frustrating…

          • Randi

            Yes,and sadly so do many women now,who even are disturbingly influenced to find men’s irrational 1,000’s of years worth of hatred of women and violence ”sexy” ”erotic” and ”normal” too,thanks to pornography and it being so unjustly,wrongly,horribly mainstreamed especially on the internet for decades now!

          • Randi

            Also the champagne splashing out all over Kim is clearly supposed to be the typical degrading,disgusting,woman-hating men ejaculating on women in pornography.

      • Lee

        Hi again Anomega! Strong and smart women could be valued, simply because they are strong and smart, not because their ass or t*ts stick out in the right way! Sooooooooooooooooooooo confusing. Keep on trying, though!

        • Anonomega

          “Hi again Anomega! Strong and smart women could be valued, simply because they are strong and smart, not because their ass or t*ts stick out in the right way!”

          Who said I disagreed with you on this.

          A man can appreciate a womans strength, intelligence, character, ect.

          A man can also sexually appreciate a womans t*ts, ass, legs, etc

          And he can appreciate them on the same woman, or not.

          What I’m arguing is that the two forms of appreciation do not negate each other. A society where the former form of appreciation is encouraged at large, does not demand a demonization or shaming of the latter kind. The’yre

          Not

          Mutually

          Exclusive

          Thats what I’m saying, understand?

          • Now you’re a mega no-no. Still appropriate to your profound stupidity and arrogance.

            You’re acting as if you understand all of this and we’re the children who need everything to be spelled out. Then again, it’s always been a stereotype promoted by morons like you that women are child-like and can’t be educated. So maybe you just think this is the normal way of talking to women.

            You are one mega asshole.

          • Sabine

            Yes, I understand. I understand that you are wildly uneducated in the matters being discussed here and are therefore in absolutely no position to be commenting on things you clearly have not even the slightest understanding of in any remotely meaningful context. Your presence here is not adding anything to this thread other than to clearly illustrate what utterly ignorant, willfully sexist morons men can be.

          • Lee

            Again, OR you could JUST value her intelligence, only comment on her intelligence, be impressed by her intelligence, allow her space to exist as an intelligent PERSON and, if she is (conventionally) sexually attractive, realize that whatever that brings up for you is happening within your own thoughts and reactions and in no way should impinge on her free movement in the world. When you appreciate ass and tits on a woman who does not want to be appreciated for her ass and tits, as in AT ALL, EVER, you are enclosing her in the sexualization fishbowl — a lot of us want to be free of that. It has been THE oppressive force enclosing women in boxes and fishbowls and in slavery for who knows how long.

            I could appreciate the penis of an intelligent or strong man, but it wouldn’t affect his entire life, from walking down the street, to how he has to think about his personal safety, even at home, to his career, to his decision whether to post a video of himself talking about smart things on the internet, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam.

            You clearly don’t want to get it, so you won’t, but it’s not that hard.

          • Congratulations Ano-mega!!!

            You’ve just won the “Bill O’Reilly/MakeMyHeadHurtWithYourUnfathomableStupidity” award!

          • corvid

            “A society where the former form of appreciation is encouraged at large…”

            HA HA HA! What society do YOU live in??

      • Laura Mcnally

        “opposed to male sexuality”?

        sorry what, objectifying Kim’s ass in the same way men did during the African slave trade is just normal ‘male sexuality’.
        Good luck with that sexuality of yours bro

        • Anonomega

          Its called physical attraction, and yes it is normal male sexuality.

          • Lola

            “Normal male sexuality” is not a human right. You don’t have the right of a pool of subhumans (women) catering to your “normal male sexuality”.

            Treated as a human being despite having breasts and a vagina, THAT IS A HUMAN RIGHT.

            I don’t really expect you to get it, so what the hell.

          • corvid

            The universe doesn’t owe him women’s bodies in any way shape or form, and he just doesn’t get that.

          • corvid

            For the last time, we are not talking about pure “physical attraction.” We are talking about a culture of the sexual objectification of women.

            I almost want to make an Anonomini meme of some sort:

            Thinks objectifying women is about appreciating women

            Doesn’t care what women think about it

          • Meghan Murphy

            OBJECTIFYINGWOMENISNTAPPRECIATINGWOMENOBJECTIFYINGWOMENISNTAPPRECIATINGWOMENOBJECTIFYINGWOMENISNTAPPRECIATINGWOMENOBJECTIFYINGWOMENISNTAPPRECIATINGWOMENOBJECTIFYINGWOMENISNTAPPRECIATINGWOMENOBJECTIFYINGWOMENISNTAPPRECIATINGWOMENOBJECTIFYINGWOMENISNTAPPRECIATINGWOMEN.

            I really don’t understand what is so difficult about this concept, Anonomini. Turning a human being into an object isn’t a compliment.

          • “For the last time, we are not talking about pure “physical attraction.” We are talking about a culture of the sexual objectification of women.”

            I agree that there is a distinction between physical attraction and sexual objectification and I do not object to your general message.

            I do however believe that some of the problems caused by sexual objectification are also caused by physical attraction (or by behaviours inspired by physical attraction, such as telling a women that she’s pretty.) One of the main reasons why the objectification of female bodies is harmful is because it leads to women (and young girls!) scrutinising their bodies to determine whether they are “sexy” or not and this usually leads to self esteem problems, as well as harmful beauty practices. When men frequently express their physical attraction or lack thereof (e.g. by telling a woman she is ugly) it causes similar problems as do toy commercials (and other forms of media) that push the view that girls/women have to be pretty in a non-sexual context.

            If men simply must experience physical attraction instead of ONLY being attracted to one’s personality traits (like Lee suggested), then they should not let it motivate their behaviour. They should not constantly talk about how pretty or ugly women are,they should not bully women who they consider physically unattractive and they should not refuse to get to know such women either. Men may not be able to totally control their thoughts, but they can control their actions.

          • Ano,

            Picture this: Hulking dude stares down at you (and heck, lets add that blank, glassy-eyed look of most strip club patrons) and says,

            “You got a real pretty mouth, boy”.

            Feel “pretty”? Feel “appreciated”? Feel “empowered”? Dude’s just expressing his physical attraction and rightful sexual desire to scull-fuck you.

            It’s all good, right?

          • Lee

            It’s called realizing women are people, and yes it’s basic human decency.

          • Anomoega

            “It’s called realizing women are people, and yes it’s basic human decency.”

            Repressing my sexuality…to the point where I dont allow myself to even look at a woman or a “sexualized” image of a woman…. is neither of those things.

          • The Real Cie

            Why does “normal male sexuality” have to include the objectification of women? Why can’t “normal males” be attracted to women without reducing them to objects?

    • I doubt anyone will accuse Kim Kardashian of being smart or strong.

      • Lee

        I agree, but it’s an argument you hear a lot about other women who choosey choicey choose to objectify themselves. She’s in Playboy, but she has a Ph.D.! So it’s totally different than when you objectify someone else! Men appreciate smartness and strongness, even in hot women, so everything has changed!

        • Yeah. It’s like loving animals, but especially the ones that can do tricks.

      • Good point.

  • Missfit

    Fear of facing accusations of jealousy or insecurity is surely something that works on women remaining silent on their thoughts and feelings. They don’t want the discussion to turn back on them, as them being the problem, which is simply another derailing tactic to not address the problem of women regularly being portrayed as ‘ass and tits’. There is not even equal representation of women being broadcasted for their ideas to balance this portrayal. And no equal quota of men being showcase as sexy bodies, of course. The problem is the overwhelming and all-encompassing heterosexual male gaze. We are tired of being forced to see the world through it. And there is the obvious link of women being constantly reduced to bodies that exist for men’s pleasure with their second-class status and overall dehumanization.

    Also, claims of jealousy infuriates me because they imply that every woman desire to look like the latest fetishized body-type en vogue. Many women don’t care. Thank you Laura for articulating this. We have to fight back yes because this world is ours too and we have every right to feel comfortable in it.

    • Randi

      So it’s not an issue of being ”jealous” of women dehumanized as nothing but inferior sex objects to use and disgard for men and looking ”sexy” like pornographic portrayals of women ( although though girls and women know that’s all they get valued for),it’s often that when we *do* resemble Playboy models etc we are dehumanized,degraded and sexually harassed as nothing but sex objects to please men just like the women shown in pornography!

  • Survivorthrrver

    Riffing off you Missfit,
    “we are tired of being forced to see the world through it” – just keep your male, homogenized-to-pornography attitudes to yourself. Whatever is going on inside your manly brain can be left there. The world no longer needs to spread the seed to survive. The male entitlement is destroying our planet, with capitalistic dominator male mentality for-profit chewing up our earth’s body, prodding and petering out the wealth from her crevices and cracks and then assuming that half the human beings on this planet are equally okay with this prodding and petering of our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. This orientation of patriarchally defined consumption of by and for males is neither welcome nor acceptable.

    STFU, keep your leering gaze inside the privacy of your eyeballs, Anonomini.

    Big buttocks should be accompanied by real status and power, spears, priestess authority to collect taxes from males and return the wealth to our female community, to protect our female bodies from prodding and petering (sexual trafficking of female/child slaves at its highest in recorded history to satisfy commodified, commercialized male gaze).

    Women create life. My body transmuted the mineral and vitamin of earth molecule, taken in as food (80% of the world’s farmers that produce food for actual human consumption are women)….and through a mysterious process the cells of your body, Anonomini, were manufactured, nourished and hosted by female body.

    Men like you, Anonomni, make me want to establish a “head tax” at birth. Males have commodified everything – setting up extractive systems of wealth building for alpha elites that stole our household labor, sucked our husbands and sons into their factories, make mass weapons of destruction that kills our sister’s babies and deform/disfigure and disable our earth and all living creatures.

    Males are destroying our planet. Males are promoting the existence of the largest community of labor and sex slaves that have ever existed on this planet – right here, right now.

    Take your alpha and profit defined tastes and s-t-i-f-l-e. Males have no power to create life, as in gestating and growing the baby body which we perform at great cost to ourselves. Maternal mortality, side effects that damage our pelvic organs and functioning for life, costs of so-called health care (really for-profit chronic disease management and injury industry)….the 24/7 nurturing which a human being requires to become autonomous adult….what economic value does this provide? Why shouldn’t women commodify human life and demand male offspring pay for their right to exist. Why can’t they work for, let’s say, 30 years to give back to the mother, to the earth, to be joyfully yolked to this loan repayment for the right of their bliss of existence?

    I do not want females to become males. Women do not get off on hurting, maiming, DP’ing, TP’ing, ATM’ing, rosebudding, bruising, debasing, bruising, degrading, nor objectifying the male anus and peni.

    I am so sick of men not “getting it”….and, having to live in daily fear for my life. I’ve suffered Adverse Childhood Events, multiple date rape attempts, a rape assault that resulted in him getting ID’d and one year in prison….and watch my tax dollars going to murder other women and their children (mostly of color humans)….

    I am enraged at the childlike, petulant, misguided and manipulated male gaze, male unwanted touch, male violence, male profiteering on our misery, male entitlement that his seed may always fall inside a female crevice for his reassurance of his own dominator status.

    I want to see a million Elizabeth Warrens in power, calling out the juvenile collusion of mass male delusion. I want to see a billion women rise up to resist what is happening on this planet today.

    I want to see 3.5 billion women refuse Penis in Vagina sex for as long as it takes to turn the tide of overpopulation and reduce the ridiculous over-population of males that is taking over the eastern societies.

    Males are out of control. They are illogical. Males are extremely emotional, resulting in war/rape/physical assault on each other and on us women. Men need to be reigned in.

    Tax’em. Deny’em. Put them in their place.

    And, women who sell out and pander to alpha dominator males at the expense of our sisters should be shunned.

    • Anonomega

      Well I’m going to make sure your little diatribe is saved. I know quite a many people who would find this amusing. May it never be said misandry doesnt exist.

      Talking about male entitlement then wanting men to basically slave 30 years for women. for the “bliss” of existing? What “bliss” under the kind of rule you want? dont talk to me about entitlement. Men sure as hell dont owe you 30 years labour. And I inspire you to impose this tax cause I think its okay for men to look at an image of a womans body? Yeah, refraining from looking at said images is another thing men dont owe you at all.

      “just keep your male, homogenized-to-pornography attitudes to yourself”

      A lot of men do keep it to ourselves. But that doesnt seem to be good enough for you.

      • corvid

        Portions of Survivorthriver’s comment are satire, A-no-no. Do you understand satire?

        Women have provided unpaid, unrecognized labour to men for millennia.

        Stop talking about “looking at images” when women here are talking about an industry that physically uses and abuses women to produce said images. And you don’t “keep it to yourselves”, it’s plastered all over women’s lives and burned into our psyches.

  • jin

    the argument that women who object to being constantly bombarded by sexually objectified images of female bodies are jealous is a very convenient way for men to make us the issue, as opposed to objectification, its harmful effects on women and their unwillingness to examine their behaviour.

    it shifts accountability from the benefiting group to the marginalised group and i’m glad to hear it challenged in this post.

  • Missfit

    Also, there is this trend that it is supposedly ‘cool’ (in the superficial sense of the word) for women to show they are totally comfortable with this constant display of women’s objectification.

    I was reflecting on that today. See, there is a strip club near my office where people can go have lunch while looking at nude women. Some men in my office go there sometimes (mainly because the food is good I am told). Why is it that someone would want to be sexually stimulated like that (no, the stripper is not seducing you for mating) before going back to work? What’s the point? It is totally misplaced if you want my opinion (which I am giving anyway, too bad). I know the underlying reason is to reaffirm a sense of male dominance. Now, I see women going in there too. Why? You are eating food and there are nude women dancing among fully clothed men (and some women). There is no nude men alongside the women (and no such place in the city neither). Right there, the sex imbalance should be sufficient to make you feel… weird at least. Or is sexism so totally assimiliated to the point where it is possible to not even notice/bother? Is it pretense? What does a woman have to gain to there (well, I heard the food is good..)? I guess being considered one of the boys, ‘open’ to the point of accepting sexism with a smile, can be seen as a benefit (which in itself should warrant reconsideration).

    To proclaim ‘it doesn’t bother me’ is being met with acclamation by a certain crowd. Might as well add ‘and I don’t question things too much’.

    • Meghan Murphy

      YES! There is a strip club a couple blocks away from my bf’s place and on the weekends there are always young men and women standing around outside — almost in equal numbers! In the past 15 years or so women have really been pressured to be ‘ok’ with porn and strip clubs — like, all the cool girls are into it, you know? Barf!

      • Missfit

        Women are so (too much) accomodating. This is following, going along. Especially when you’re young, you’re just thinking the world is this way, what can you do? so you go along. Better adopt the attitude ‘I don’t bother’. What’s the saying again? ‘if you can’t beat them, join them?’ I say let’s beat them; we can!

        This attitude is quite problematic. Like the article from HuffPo referred to in this article. The blogger’s response to critics is basically ‘well, it doesn’t bother me (I’m not like these jealous/insecure women over there)’. While she recognized most critics are women, she seems unable to understand what is irritating (and women don’t always have the words to express themselves; before feminism, I had a hard time articulating these things). She does not even question the fact that women’s bodies (and not men’s) are displayed as such whereas that should be the central question. And the answer is that because that is what men want. Our visual landscape is what it is because that is what men want. Not women, obviously; the blogger admitted that women were protesting (those damn women expressing themselves). Why doesn’t she ask the question as to why men’s wants always take precedence over women’s? Why do we have to live in a world where men’s desires dictate the place women have in it? These are the questions. And the answer is : because patriarchy. That is what we need to talk about.

        Kardashian is a drop in the ocean, if there was no ocean, it wouldn’t be a big deal, but women are drowning in this ocean now. It would be considerate to bother and question.

        • Yeah, it’s a tough one. I went to strip clubs years ago (I think three times) to do exactly that: to prove how strong and confident I am. What a pile of crap. I might as well have taken a hammer to my knee caps to make the same point.

          It seems to me that this rationale resonates with the “choice” rhetoric that essentially says no one should use the word “victim” under any circumstance because to say that someone has been victimized is as damaging/more damaging than the original offence. It’s a clever tactic because I think psychologically is is somehow easier to absorb the injury than to say that you did not have enough control to prevent it. That’s why I did not breathe a word about being raped at 15 by a 35-year-old. I immediately rationalized the event as being my fault because somehow I could live with that more easily than admitting to myself that he had invaded me, used and abused me like he did (and with no more regard than someone uses a tissue to blow their nose). The humiliation was too much. I think of this whenever I read a comment from a prostitute/sex worker who is enraged by a statement about grooming, the percentage of childhood sexual abuse correlated with women in the sex industry or the high risks of the transaction itself.

          So to stand up and say “This is degrading and poisonous. This is bigotry in action. This is damaging.” about strip clubs takes a particular sort of strength. You are definitely characterized as weak, a “victim”, when in fact it’s exactly the opposite. Self-respect in and boundary setting by women gets twisted in this culture and labeled as something, weak and/or oppressive.

      • Sabine

        We have liberal feminism to thank for this phenomena….

        • Meghan Murphy

          Between them and Hugh Hefner, the great liberator of women, we are a lucky bunch! AND SO, SO SEXY.

          • Sabine

            And that’s the most important thing, right? To feel (and look) SEXYYYYYYYYYYY!!! Excuse me while I heave…

  • Survivorthriver

    Today in the Seattle Times a brave editor is documenting the nightly trafficking of 300-500 underage girls driven by BAckpage and online pimping.

    “In this unfettered online market, grown men play dumb and pretend they have no idea that the “daddy’s little girl” they ordered up for sex may be 12 years old.”

    The commodification of sexuality by males over female and CHILDREN’s bodies is beyond disgusting.

    Kim Kardashian and the collusion by “fun fems” and stupid females dressing like strippers in every day life are in direct support of the entire misogynist Madison-Avenue profit driven and smugly disordered, entitled male sexuality.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Women are routinely trafficked via Backpage.com. Why is it still legal?? Like, and the decrim folks in Canada are complaining that our new prostitution bill will criminalize third party advertising…. But, hello!!

      • Survivorthriver

        I’m a person who believes that FILMED prostitution should be illegal. There is no such thing as “porn star” only filmed prostituted persons.

        Many cities have tried to deal with this, but here’s evidence that men at the top will fight to maintain their priveledge to rape girls and trafficked women. This federal judge is probably a porn head, pedophile or rapist, too:

        Judge Rules Craigslist Not Liable For Adult Ads
        Web sites protected under federal law
        10/22/2009 | ConsumerAffairs

        By Jon Hood
        Jonathan Hood is a New York City attorney who practices … Read Full Bio→
        Phone: 866-773-0221

        A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought against Craigslist by Cook County, Illinois sheriff Thomas Dart, who claimed the classified-ad site’s “adult services” section was contributing to prostitution. The judge cited federal law protecting Web sites from liability based on comments or posts made by readers.

        U.S. District Judge John Grady reaffirmed that Web sites like Craigslist were protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which classifies…”

        • corvid

          Thanks for bringing up Craigslist! It’s horrible, and it isn’t just the “adult” section by any means!! From my experience with their “jobs” category, any sub-category that it is perceived women are likely to peruse (i.e. customer service, office/admin, part-time, artists, creative, etc.) is spammed with ads by pimps hiring “sexy massage attendants” or “escorts” or men looking for “erotic” photo models, and other similar things. About every 5th ad is like this. And in the skilled/trades section, biotech/science or anything that might be viewed as pertaining to men? Not a one.

  • Mike

    Why do you allow Kim to be such a victim? Do you not think she has any agency? Are well all not in some way apart of the system with subconscious biases underpinning it all? Aren’t Men and WOMEN apart of perpetuating this? Your article doesn’t address any of this. Kim and her family seem to be smart business people. It seems to me that they have profited solely on Kim’s looks. Can’t have it both ways!

    • “Why do you allow Kim to be such a victim?”
      You can’t “allow” someone to be a victim. They either are or they aren’t.

      “Do you not think she has any agency?”
      No. No one has “agency” because “agency” is a code word for blaming the victim. We’re not interested in blaming any individual, we’re interested in systemic analysis.

      “Aren’t Men and WOMEN apart of perpetuating this?”
      Yes. However, you seem to think that somehow excuses it. It doesn’t.

      • Mike

        It is clear that you have no capacity to see a different point of you. This is evident by your response which is purely semantics in nature. You haven’t said anything to address what I said. While I agree that you are talking about systemic issues and that they may be complex, I don’t see why I can’t say that Kim seems to have profited from it or more bluntly used the system to her advantage. I would hold these wome to a higher standard. Also, when I said both men and women perpetuate this stereotype, I wasn’t implicitly assigning blame to women. It seemed that from your article you were assigning most of the blame on men so I was just pointing that out.

        • “You haven’t said anything to address what I said.”

          You must be fucking illiterate then, because I directly addressed every single point you made.