Ok, so I watch Keeping Up With the Kardashians. I admit it. I really like the fashion and the ridiculous, over-the-top antics. I know this is a scripted 'reality' show. To loosely quote Joel McHale from E! show The Soup, Kim Kardashian is 'famous for having a big butt and a sex tape.' She is also the daugther of the late Robert Kardashian (lawyer for O.J. Simpson) and stepdaughter of Olympic champion Bruce Jenner. The DVD cover for the first season for the show looks like this:
Kim and her ass are clearly the star of the show and the other family members are just background to her behind. It just reinforces why they have a show to begin with. She has been reduced to a one-part sex object instead of being regarded as a whole person.
It reminds me of Sara Baartman, also known as the Venus Hottentot. She was an African woman who was paraded around to be displayed as a sideshow attraction for white people fascinated with 19th century exoticism. A hateful mix of racism and sexism. She was famous for her prominent behind and 'interesting genitals.' I have read a lot about her and have still not found out what was interesting about them. Anyone who knows PLEASE leave in comments.
As far as women have advanced, it is disheartening that we are still so often reduced to our parts.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Kim Kardashian: Present Day Venus Hottentot.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8911
Plenty has been written about Sarah Baartman, if you're interested in reading up on the topic. Patricia Hill Collins wrote an article called "Black Sexual Politics" in which she makes a similar comparison between Baartman and Jennifer Lopez, because of the reduction to a body part. As for Baartman's genitalia, I think the supposedly interesting thing was that her labia were elongated. But I feel like it barely matters what the actual physical characteristic was, it was just a stand-in for racism and sexism. A fictionalized autobiography of Baartman came out a few years ago, and a new academic book about her came out last year. You can find them both by searching for "hottentot venus" in Amazon.com.
The specific body part in question, the butt, is strongly associated not just with women but with women of color. Reducing women of color to this specific body part has historically been done as a way to compare them to animals, and to lessen their humanity, in a way that was not done with white women. So although it's true that women in general are reduced to one or more body parts in the media all the time, it's still important bedroom furniture to examine cases like this more closely.
I believe it was that her labiae minorae were very long...
Thanks! You're right that it doesn't matter what the actual physical characteristics are. I just kept hearing/reading 'interesting' and was bewildered as to what would make one person's interesting since women's parts come in all shapes and sizes!
I did read that fictionalized autobiography, but I didn't catch Hill Collins' comparison. I have a few of her books, I'll have to thumb through and find them.
I agree that she's reduced to a body part, but what difference does it make if she's reduced to one part or three? Most women on TV are reduced to their appearance and usefulness as sex-objects. You become really sensitive to it when you have little girls who are watching it and soaking it up...scary.
Interesting post.
From Sarah Baartman's Wikipedia:
"The labia minora, or inner lips, of the ordinary female genitalia are greatly enlarged in Khoi-San women, and may hang down three or four inches below the vagina when women stand, thus giving the impression of a separate and enveloping curtain of skin" (Gould, 1985). Saartjie never allowed this trait to be exhibited while she was alive.
... While she was alive?
I don't even want to know. Poor woman.
Yes, her parts were put on display at a museum after her death until they were returned to where she was born and properly buried.
Rachel: In this case, the difference is history. The specific body part in question, the butt, is strongly associated not just with women but with women of color. Reducing women of color to this specific body part has historically been done as a way to compare them to animals, and to lessen their humanity, in a way that was not done with white women. So although it's true that women in general are reduced to one or more body parts in the media all the time, it's still important to examine cases like this more closely because of the intersection of race and gender.
I don't watch Keeping Up With the Kardashians, but I watch the clips on Jezebel all the time.
I hate to admit it, but I kind of started to respect Kim when I read about Shanna Moakler complaining about how "fat" she supposedly is. 5"2 and 140 lbs, and I'm not sure if that's true, but it would make her healthier than most starlets. And she's still seen as one of the most beautiful women alive. So I appreciate her for that.
In interviews, I get the feeling that she acts more vapid than she actually is, which just pisses me off.