Female body – Bitch Flicks

‘Keeping up with the Kardashians’: Looking at Kim Kardashian’s Naked Body

Kardashian quite literally embodies the complex construction of the female body as something to be looked at. And with her body being so readily, excessively, and continually put on show, can we help but do anything but look?

Written by Sarah Smyth as part of our theme week on Reality TV.

Kim Kardashian is, arguably, one of the most visible celebrities of the 21st century. She’s prolific in all forms of popular media including the tabloid press, television, social media, and other internet outlets, and her recent attempt to “break the internet” demonstrates her power and command over these sources. Yet, her prolificacy resides not only in the sheer outlandishness, excess, and controversy of her fame. Rather the success of her celebrity status is situated in the hyper-visible presentation of her body. In particular, through the continual display of her naked body (something in which certain magazines are particularly interested), Kardashian quite literally embodies the complex construction of the female body as something to be looked at. And with her body being so readily, excessively, and continually put on show, can we help but do anything but look?

kim.paparazzi — Who’s looking at you, Kim?

Using Kardashian’s hit reality television show, Keeping up with the Kardashians, as a framing device for the presentation of her body, in this article, I will attempt to unpick the multiple ways in which Kardashian’s naked body becomes looked at. Looking at three examples of her nakedness, her sex tape, Playboy photo shoot and Paper photo shoot, I will demonstrate how Kardashian both internalizes and reasserts the strict social and cultural monitoring of the female body’s naked display, as well as the construction of the naked female body as a sexually objectified and fetishized image for the male gaze.

Firstly, I will consider the way in which Kardashian’s naked body becomes looked at through her sex tape. In the pilot episode of Keeping up with the Kardashians, appropriately named, “I’m watching you”, Kardashian worries about going on The Tyra Banks Show to discuss her sex tape. Eventually she does – who can turn down that free publicity?! – but only to show remorse and regret for her “inappropriate” actions. She tells Banks, “[The tape] was [made] with my boyfriend of three years that I was very much in love with, and whatever we did in our private time was our private time, and never once did we think that it would get out… I made it. I need to take responsibility for what I’ve done. I have little sisters. I need to teach them what not to do.” Kardashian’s worries about going on the show and her eventual plea for forgiveness demonstrate the way in which we rigidly monitor and discipline the presentation of the (naked) female body and female sexuality. Leading social critic and philosopher, Michel Foucault explains in his book, Discipline and Punish, that we are not only surveyed by various forms of authority and power, but that we also learn to internalise this surveillance causing us to discipline ourselves. Using the structure of the Panopticon, a kind of prison where the prisoners are constantly watched by guards who are themselves hidden, Foucault demonstrates the way in which we are constantly monitored in our everyday life to the extent that we learn to maintain and embody a kind of self-surveillance.

Although not in a literal prison, Keeping up with the Kardashians reflect this monitoring in several ways. Firstly, as Lucia Soriano claims, “In Foucauldian terms, the viewer [of the show] takes on the role and monitors the Kardashians’ bodies to “assess it, to judge it, to calculate its qualities or merits.” Foucault conveys that “the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action” hence, “the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary.” In other words, when we think about Keeping Up with the Kardashians, regardless if the camera is on or off, they are conditioned to continuously inspect themselves.”

However, the show is not the only place where this monitoring occurs. Kardashian’s appearance on The Tyra Banks Show also demonstrates this surveillance, both by the viewers and by Kardashian herself. Attempting to emphasize her long-term relationship with her partner, as well as her position as a role model for other young girls, Kardashian is aware of but crucially never challenges the societal and cultural demand for women to embody and also present a private and heteronormative constructed naked body.

Kimplayboy — *Playboy* legitimizes the display of Kardashian’s naked body

This moment directly contrasts with a later episode, “Birthday Suit,” in which Kardashian now struggles with the decision of whether or not to pose naked for Playboy magazine. Again, Kardashian demonstrates an awareness of the socially and culturally sanctions placed on women’s presentation of their bodies as she worries about how the nude shoot would impact on her image. She claims, “Ever since the sex-tape scandal, I have to be really careful in how I’m perceived.” Kardashian, it seems, has internalized the wider monitoring of her body to the extent that she now places boundaries and sanctions on the presentation and visibility of her naked body. In the end, she decides to do it. Again, this kind of publicity is too good to pass up.

The difference in this situation, however, is that, framed within male sexual desire, Playboy legitimizes her naked and sexual(ized) body through what Alexandra Sastre calls the normative and regulated sexual practice of posing for Playboy. As Laura Mulvey argues in her famous essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” (heterosexual) men have the authority of the look. Examining film in particular, Mulvey argues that male protagonist is the active subject in contrast to the women who functions as a passive and erotic object. Functioning as the identificatory anchor for the (assumed) male spectator, the man is the bearer of the look whereas the woman is there to be looked at. In this way, through Playboy’s conventional heteronormative and phallocentric structures of looking, the magazine legitimizes the display of Kardashian’s naked body. Whereas Kardashian’s sex tape suggests an authority and autonomy over the creation of the tape which makes ambiguous the intended spectator – Kim jokingly says on the show that she made it because “[she] was horny and [she] felt like it” – Playboy reasserts normative and accepted forms of looking at Kardashian’s naked body.

Although both my examples occurred in an early part of Kardashian’s career, the way we look at her naked body continues to be a point of discussion, controversy, and criticism. The backlash surrounding her now famous photo shoot for Paper magazine demonstrates the way in which Kardashian’s body or, perhaps more accurately, the display of her body is still a site for intense scrutiny, monitoring and judgment. Some, including this Bitch Flicks piece, explored Kardashian’s use of cultural appropriation by presenting her body in a similar way to “freakish” yet fetishized Black bodies. Not only is this particularly disturbing and offensive in itself, but it also adds another complex layer as to how we look at Kardashian’s naked body. In her essay, “Eating the Other,” bell hooks discusses the way in which “ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is white cultural.” What particularly interests me is the way in which hooks discusses the young white male’s fascination and desire to have sex with women from ethnic minorities. She says, “To these young males and their buddies, fucking was a way to confront the Other… They claim the body of the colored Other instrumentally, as unexplored terrain, a symbolic frontier…”

What becomes disconcerting, then, when considering who is looking at Kardashian’s naked body in Paper is the way in which her cultural appropriation directly feeds into the fetishizing, objectification, and commodification of the black female body in particular by white males. In this way, her body continues to function as a complex and ambiguous site of problematic form of looking. As Kardashian’s body continues as a hyper-visible image in the collective cultural consciousness, we can only hope that we learn to break down the ways of looking at her body in order to dismantle our complicity in the policing, objectification and fetishization of her naked body.

Kardashian's photo shoot for "Paper" magazine was heavily criticized for its appropriation of black female bodies — Kardashian’s photo shoot for *Paper* magazine was heavily criticized for its appropriation of black female bodies

_______________________________________________

Sarah Smyth recently finished a Master’s Degree in Critical Theory with an emphasis on gender and film at the University of Sussex, UK. Her dissertation examined the abject male body in cinema, particularly focusing on the spatiality of the anus (yes, really). She’s based now in London, UK and you can follow her on Twitter at @sarahsmyth91.

‘Little Miss Sunshine’: Masculinity’s Losers

As each male character tackles a personal problem which has either implicit or explicit links to normative constructions of successful masculinity, ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ examines the burden of this masculine ideal. So difficult to maintain yet so embedded in the social, cultural, economic, and political conceptualization of “manliness,” men who fail to embody this ideal inevitably become marked out as “losers.”

Written by Sarah Smyth.

When talking to a group of high school students, Arnold Schwarzenegger apparently claimed, “I hate losers. I despise losers.” Multi-Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia winner, Hollywood mega-star, entrepreneur and Governor, Schwarzenegger dedicates his life to the pursuit of the hyper-masculine ideal and American dream. Wealthy, powerful and incredibly buff, Schwarzenegger embodies the Western conceptualization of a successful man.

The men of the 2007 hit film, Little Miss Sunshine would be, in Schwarzenegger’s eyes, “losers.” Indeed, Michael Arndt, the film’s scriptwriter, claims this troubling quote provided the framework through which he constructed the characters and deconstructed the notion of “loser.” As each male character tackles a personal problem which has either implicit or explicit links to normative constructions of successful masculinity, Little Miss Sunshine examines the burden of this masculine ideal. So difficult to maintain yet so embedded in the social, cultural, economic, and political conceptualization of “manliness,” men who fail to embody this ideal inevitably become marked out as “losers.”

The poster for 'Little Miss Sunshine' — *Little Miss Sunshine*

Little Miss Sunshine tells the story of the Hoover family, which includes the heroin-snorting grandpa, Edwin; the failing motivational speaker father, Richard; the suicidal uncle, Frank; politically mute brother, Dwayne; and stressed mother, Sheryl; as they go on a road trip from Albuquerque to California to support 7-year-old Olive as she competes in a beauty pageant. Along the way, they face many setbacks – some mechanical but many personal – as each character comes to face the primary difficulty in their life.

Before I examine the particular ways in which Little Miss Sunshine deconstructs the image of “failing” or “inadequate” masculinity through the male characters, it is crucial to examine the ways in which this impinges on women. For one, the film most obviously and explicitly highlights and examines the markers of success which are most acutely and destructively felt by women. For another, the metaphor of the beauty pageant which, as I will examine later, comes to define the identification of the “successful” masculine existence, is literalised in the film through Olive’s narrative. Although only seven years old, Olive’s body is subject to the social, cultural and familial surveillance which continues to monitor a woman’s body for the rest of her life, identifying her body as a “success” or “failure.” The opening credits make clear the juxtaposition between Olive’s body and the pageant queen’s body; whereas the pageant queen is “slim,” Olive is “chubby.” Later, after Olive orders ice-cream for breakfast, Richard explains to her that “the fat in the ice-cream will become fat in your body.” Even though Sheryl explains to Olive that “it’s OK to be skinny, and it’s OK to be fat if that’s what you want,” Richard makes clear that in order to be a winner, she must be thin, claiming, “Ok, Olive, but let me ask you this. The women in Miss America: Are they fat or are they skinny?” Despite the rest of the family’s encouragement to not listen to Richard and eat the ice-cream, Olive is visibly shaken by this and later asks her grandpa, “Am I pretty?” She’s upset because, as she says, “Daddy hates losers.”

The film identifies the beauty pageant as "grotesque", and marks Olive's body as "failing" to conform to the beauty standards put forth by the pageant — The film identifies the beauty pageant as “grotesque,” and marks Olive’s body as “failing” to conform to the beauty standards put forth by the pageant

The surveillance of Olive’s body eventually culminates as the family arrive at the beauty pageant. Exaggerated and (arguably) grotesque in fake tan, makeup, big hair and swimsuits, the other pre-pubescent contestants demonstrate the complex way in which we monitor young girls’ bodies. On the one hand, we may identify these bodies as freakish, suggesting our rigid policing of the presentation of the young female body, particularly with reference to sexuality. On the other hand, through Olive, we are also presented with another kind of bodily monitoring which, pitting her body against the other contestants, already marks her out as a unable to fulfill the requirements of being a beauty queen. Anticipating this assertion, Dwayne attempts to protect her by claiming, “I don’t want these people judging Olive.” Not embodying the beauty standards constructed by the pageant – slim, tanned, poised, with big hair and full make up – it’s clear that, within the context of the pageant, Olive’s body is identified as a “failure.”

In some ways, the male characters of the film embody a kind of privilege which makes them exempt from this monitoring and, by extension, marking out as a “failure.” At no point does the male body become subject to the superficial yet extremely destructive bodily surveillance in the film which so rigorously contours the female existence. In fact, the film suggests that male privilege not only makes them exempt from bodily monitoring but actually enables them the authority to construct the ideals through which female bodies are judged. During the ice-cream scene, Edwin tells Olive not to listen to her father because “I like a woman with meat on her bones.” The “success” of the female body, it seems, is still very much monitored by men. However, by presenting the ways in which the “failings” of each of the male character threaten to compromise his socially and culturally constructed masculinity, Little Miss Sunshine demonstrates the way in which his privilege is comprised by other conflicting factors.

Olive already begins to internalize the monitoring of her body

In Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men, Lynne Segal claims, “Dominant ideals of masculinity come from social meanings which distinguish these ideals from what they are not.” Therefore, to be “masculine” is to not be “feminine,” “queer” or racially, ethnically or bodily “inferior.” In Little Miss Sunshine, the male characters attempt to battle various “weaknesses” that may comprise their masculine identity. Edwin attempts to maintain a tough exterior despite his aging body. He claims to “fuck a lot of women” and “still has Nazi bullets in [his] ass.” Yet, he cannot escape the fallibility of his body as a drug overdose eventually leads to his death. Dwayne, also, attempts to harden and toughen his body in preparation for joining the hyper-masculine world of the US Air Force Academy. He continually works out in the film and even takes a vow of silence, suggesting the determinacy of his ambition. However, his body also lets him down as he discovers he’s colorblind, shattering his dream to fly planes. Frank, on the other hand, feels threatened primarily through his academic failings. This is particularly significant because, as a gay man, the narrative could have easily slipped into exploring the “failings” of Frank’s masculinity through his queer identity. After all, as Leo Bersani claims in Is the Rectum a Grave?, phallocentrism aligns women and gay men, particularly through their bodies and the way in which they are penetrated. Therefore, dominant images of masculinity must deny these bodily “weaknesses.” However, rather than attempting to commit suicide due to any queer masculine crisis, Frank tries to kill himself after his academic rival, Larry Fisherman, won a genius award, threatening his position as the number one Proust scholar in the USA. Representing a particular image of masculine competitiveness, Frank fears being considered a “loser.”

The men of 'Little Miss Sunshine' all face being marked as a "loser" — The men of *Little Miss Sunshine* all face being marked as a “loser”

Richard, however, most explicitly reflects the masculine anxiety of being marked out as a “loser.” A motivational speaker and life coach, throughout the film Richard attempts to secure a contract to turn his “Nine Steps to Success” program into a lucrative business. For Richard, winning is paramount. At one point, he tells Olive that luck has nothing to do with winning. Rather, it’s about “willing yourself to win.” In fact, he emphasizes the point of winning so much that he claims that “there’s no point going [to the pageant] unless you think you’re going to win.” Richard’s desire to win or, to put it another way, his fear about being marked as a “loser,” explicitly intersects with Schwarzenegger’s definition of “successful” masculinity. Both Richard’s program and narrative uphold the American Dream. Stating that prosperity, success, and upward social mobility can all be achieved through hard work, the American Dream advocates the kind of success represented by Schwarzenegger; despite not being a born-and-bred American, he is the ultimate self-made man. However, maintaining the Liberal and Neoliberal structures of economy which privileges the economic freedoms of individualism and laissez-faire, the American dream, will always privilege the straight white man.

As Lisa Duggan claims in The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy, “Neoliberalism, a late twentieth-century incarnation of Liberalism, organizes material and political life in terms of race, gender, and sexuality as well as economic class and nationality, or ethnicity and religion.” In this way, Schwarenegger’s definition of the “loser,” a definition which is explicitly embedded in the notion of a “failing” masculinity, refuses to acknowledge the privileges afforded to white, heterosexual, able-bodied, economically privileged and cis-gendered men. In this way, it refuses to acknowledge that hard work does not always turn you into a winner. Despite his many privileges, Richard’s program, ironically, fails. For one, as his potential business partner says, “no one’s heard of you.” For another, Richard’s current economic situation compromises his privilege. The success of the program is paramount to keeping the family financially afloat. Money issues plague the family throughout the film – indeed, the reason they travel to the pageant in their van is because they can’t afford flights – and Richard promises that securing this deal will “start generating some income.” Failing to provide for his family, Richard fails to fulfill the traditional male (and masculine) role of the breadwinner. More crucially, however, Richard demonstrates that the American Dream is not available to everyone. Not everybody, it seems, can be a winner.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Embodying ideal masculinity a bit too much...? — Arnold Schwarzenegger: Embodying ideal masculinity a bit too much…?

In the end, Dwayne sums up the problems they all face: “Fuck beauty contests. Life’s one long beauty contest: school, college, work… Fuck that.” The emphasis on external appearance – enormous wealth, a slim body, successful career, big house and beautiful partner – ensures that dominant Western, Neoliberal and hyper-masculine ideals are maintained, and anything that may compromise this – what Segal identifies as “inferior”- remains rigidly monitored and surveyed. However, by “failing” to conform to these standards, by saying “fuck the beauty pageants,” and by willing ourselves to lose, we may find a way to resist these ultimately oppressive and destructive ideals.

______________________________________

Sarah Smyth is a staff writer at Bitch Flicks who recently finished a Master’s Degree in Critical Theory with an emphasis on gender and film at the University of Sussex, UK. Her dissertation examined the abject male body in cinema, particularly focusing on the spatiality of the anus (yes, really). She’s based now in London, UK and you can follow her on Twitter at @sarahsmyth91.