I have something to ask Kim Kardashian: What the actual f***? Are you a mother or a porn star? Why did you need to do this?
I know, I know. I shouldn’t encourage anybody to give this twit clicks and I shouldn’t read stupid articles written by nitwits. But I did read it and I am still screaming. Perfectly enough, it even begins with a quote from Caitlin fucking Moran.
Is Mia Freedman actually so dumb and stuck in her super rich gross privileged ‘I got handed a magazine job when I was like 14 years old’ world that she doesn’t know that plenty of porn stars are also mothers?! I guess so. Also so dumb that she’d include a quote about burning things in the midst of the NSW fires.
Kim Kardashian looks beautiful and amazing in that photo. Mothers don’t suddenly stop being sexy or wanting to look sexy just because they’ve had children. Who put Mia ‘gross fuckhead’ Freedman in charge of deciding what is and isn’t sexy, or what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour for mothers? NOBODY, thank GOD. And what the fuck is with her mention of Kim’s sex tape?! Like, how dare you not feel bad enough about the fact that somebody stole a tape you made with your boyfriend and did this horrible thing to you by releasing it to the public, Kim!
So many people have this really scary and completely unfounded hatred of Kim Kardashian that I just don’t understand in the slightest. Can we (women especially, but really EVERYONE) stop hating other women and trying to police what they do/wear/take photos of?! When you think of all the women and girls in the world with low self esteem who hate their bodies shouldn’t we be celebrating that Kim, and any other woman, clearly likes the way she looks, and is happy enough with her body that she would post a photo like that? That is actually pretty rare, so many women hate the way they look. Kimmy 4 EVA, Mia Freedman NEVER.
I’m so sick of Mia Freedman and 99% of the internet playing the morality police and deciding what is and isn’t appropriate for Kim to do. Also just sick of Mamamia full stop.
I sometimes wonder if Freeeeedman thinks having put a few non-Size-6 models in Cosmo back in the late-’90s gives her free reign to be a complete judgmental nightmare in the 2010s?
16-year old Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban for her critique of religious fundamentalism and her defense of girls’ education. Her heroic struggle instantly made her an icon of secular liberals across Europe and the US, earning her a place on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show and a private audience with President Obama. But, for some reason, a very important part of Malala’s political message (including her critique of Obama’s drone strikes in Pakistan) is systematically filtered out by the selective hearing of the liberal Western media. Like this:
Regardless of her beliefs, no one deserves to be shot in the head for saying what they are. Her ideas are complex and wise beyond her years. While I believe socialism is a fundamentally broken idea and will never subscribe to it, there are many things she says that I do agree with.
9,000 Fallen Soldiers Stenciled into Sand at Normandy Beach
To commemorate “Peace Day”, British artists Jamie Wardley and Andy Moss, in combination with many volunteers, went to Normandy Beach and stenciled the silhouettes of the 9,000 soldiers who lost their lives on D-Day during World War II. With rakes and stencils pads shaped like bodies in hand, the group completed the temporary art installation titled The Fallen 9000.
The work is meant to serve as a stark visual reminder of the civilians, allied forces and Germans who died during the beach landings at Arromanches on D-Day: June 6th, 1944. The initial team began with 60 volunteers, but as word spread to nearby residents, an additional 500 people came to help with the temporary installation. Although the stenciled body impressions in the sand only lasted a few hours before the tide washed them away, the photographs serve as a reminder of the horrors of war and of the cherished lives lost.
I’d like you to remember the last time you found it difficult to give an explicit “no” to somebody in a non-sexual context. Maybe they asked you to do them a favour, or to join them for a drink. Did you speak up and say, outright, “No?” Did you apologise for your “no?” Did you qualify it and say, “Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t make it today?” If you gave an outright “no,” what privileged positions do you occupy in society, and how does your answer differ from the answers of people occupying more marginalised positions?
This form of refusal was analysed in 1999 by Kitzinger and Frith (K&F) in Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal. Despite the seeming ambiguity in question/refusal acts like, “We were wondering if you wanted to come over Saturday for dinner,” “Well, uhh, it’d be great but we promised Carol already,” they are widely understood by the participants as straightforward refusals.
K&F conclude by saying that, “For men to claim [in a sexual context] that they do not ‘understand’ such refusals to be refusals (because, for example, they do not include the word ‘no’) is to lay claim to an astounding and implausible ignorance of normative conversational patterns.”