\AtoHnftc;dav, November 19. 2014 > page 15
o
OPINIONIS
Kim Kardashian: Empowering or Embarrassing?
For: Taking control of the situation
If you haven’t seen or heard about
Kim Kardashian’s latest adventure, you
may be living under a rock. The buxom
beauty showed off her
famous derriere on
the cover of PAPER
Magazine, prompting
much criticism and
» debate.
There are a few
arguments that get
. .^HbH recycled. “She’s a
mother,” people
cry. “She just wants
attention,” they say.
“She’s trashy and
doesn’t respect herself ”
The mother argument irks me the
most. Just because she gave birth to a
child does not mean that she should give
up what makes her uniquely her. Posing
nude is nothing new for Kardashian. It’s
not as though she abandons her baby to
go out and party every night. She doesn’t
seem to have a drug habit. She doesn’t
pull a Michael Jackson and dangle her
baby out of the window of a building.
As far as parents go, there are millions of
people I would criticize before I would
call out Kardashian.
I don’t know why everyone thought
because Kardashian has a child she
would turn into a cookie-baking, sweat-
er-set-wearing, stay-at-home soccer mom.
She has always been an attention-seeker,
and she always will be. This fact is com
pletely separate from her parenting skills.
If North West is going to be embar
rassed by her mom in fifteen years, she
has a long list of things to choose from,
and this magazine cover doesn’t even
crack the top ten of the most ridiculous
things Kardashian has done for publicity.
■ For those of you saying Kardashian is
devaluing herself, I don’t think that’s true
at all. She was paid well for this cover.
She knows exactly how valuable her assets
are, and she is getting every dollar she can
get out of them.
Kardashian has been known for years
as a sex symbol. She gets ogled on a daily
basis. She can’t even post a simple Insta-
gram photo of her 2-year-old daughter
without getting dozens of lewd comments
about her own body on it.
This picture represents Kardashian
taking control over the situation. She is
perfectly happy being a sex symbol. She
has no qualms abour bearing it all, being
the person that everybody already makes
her into.
Kardashian is not the only person who
had control over this cover. Maybe it’s not
the brilliant art that PAPER Magazine
usually has, but it’s not supposed to be.
This cover serves to get attention —
attention for Kardashian and attention
for the magazine. I know that I hadn’t
even heard of this magazine until Kar
dashian was on the cover. Their website
went from a paltry 500,000 unique views
per month to 16 million hits in the past
week.
Even if you hate it, chances are you’ve
still seen the cover, and therefore you’re
giving Kardashian and PAPER what they
want. You know the old saying, “Any pub
licity is good publicity?” Well, it’s true.
A lot of people who claim to be fem
inists say Kardashian is setting feminism
back. She’s degrating herself as a woman.
But shouldn’t feminism be about defining
someone for their brains and their minds,
not their bodies?
Kardashian may come off as a greased-
up femme fatale, but she is also a shrewd
businesswoman, a devoted wife and
mother. She has thicker skin than anyone
who is trying to tear her down.
I’d like to see a single person who has
made rude comments about Kardashian
be in her shoes for one hour. The woman
gets more hate in five minutes on any
given social media platform than most of
us get in a lifetime.
I keep hearing that Kardashian is “not
classy.” A quick Google search revealed
that classy means “stylish and sophisticat
ed.” Kardashian has got style. There is no
denying that. She has become a fashion
icon.
As for sophisticated, the definition
of that word is “having, revealing, or
proceeding from a great deal of worldly
experience and knowledge of fashion and
culture,” and Kardashian is a world-trav
eler. There is nothing in the definition
that says a woman can’t pose nude and
still be considered classy.
If Kardashian wants to flaunt her
naked body for the world to see, I don’t
really care. If you don’t like it, you don’t
have to look at it. It’s as simple as that.
But you shouldn’t demonize a woman you
don’t know, just because her job is some
thing you would never do. She has made
millions from showcasing her body and
will continue to make millions more. It’s
her body, and if she wants to do it, more
power to her.
I personally would never want to air
my entire body for the world to see, but
it’s not because I have a higher respect for
myself than Kardashian does for herself.
If you’re offended by nudity or feel
uncomfortable, that’s a valid feeling. But
there is a huge jump from “This displeases
me,” to “She’s a stupid, classless tramp.”
Against: #BreakingHerReputation
Kim Kardashian is thrusting herself— or
rather, her rear end — back into the center
of attention with a cover for PAPER Mag
azine that exposes her
posterior for all eyes to
» | see, as well as a spread
I of fully nude photos.
She previewed the
photos on Instagram
last week, complete
with a pretentious cap
tion that simply stated
#BreakTheInternet.
People may argue
about why Kardashian
is famous. Some say it
Leah Channas
Columnist
was because her father was O.J. Simpson’s
attorney. Others claim it was her mother’s
marriage to Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner.
But most can agree that one of the most
memorable scandals relating to Kardashian’s
notoriety was her sex tape scandal wdth
singer Ray J in 2007.
What is concerning about Kardashian’s
recent decision to pose nude is her com
plete disregard for her pre\dous attempts to
separate herself from the sex tape scandal to
become known and respected on a pro
fessional level. Since when did completely
exposing oneself seem like a good transition
to being professionally respected?
This is not the first time Kardashian has
been seen nude in a magazine, either.
In 2010, Kardashian posed nude for W
Magazine after being promised that her
breasts and bottom would be covered with
artwork so that nothing would be wsible.
Ewdently, someone along the way decided to
go back on that promise, revealing photos of
Kardashian’s naked body without anything
to cover it.
Kardashian angrily called her publicist in
tears, stating that she felt taken advantage
of and labeled the photos as pornography.
Then, she said that she would never pose
nude for a magazine again, because she
didn’t want people to think she was only
good for being naked.
So, what exactly happened to that idea?
Apparendy four years is the going rate for
deciding that she actually does enjoy having
all of her private body parts on display for
strangers.
As a mother, Kardashian now has a
bigger responsibility of acting as a role
model for younger generations. People may
argue.she can choose to do what she wants
and hawng a baby does not mean she has to
change her personality. But as a prominent
figure in society she has the power to make a
positive impact on other mothers and young
girls in order to promote a future where
females are worth more than their appear
ances.
It is great to see someone with confidence
in her body image, but there are classier ways
to promote self-esteem. Posing nude for a
magazine does not empower women — it
sexualizes them.
As someone who is already heavily
associated with sex, Kardashian made a poor
self-marketing choice by posing nude. Sure,
it grabs attention and gets people talking,
but not all talk is beneficial to one’s reputa
tion.
Kardashian is 34 years old, and it is time
for her to grow up. If she wants to break
away from her past scandal and be recog
nized for her professional achievements,
she needs to stop relying on using herself
as a sex symbol to promote herself and gain
attention. She needs to start doing things
that make a difference in the world.
And no, a reality show does not cut it.
PHOTO COURTESY OF TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE
Kim Kardashian’s name has been the source of ceiebrity gossip and conversation for years.
Beware making police stereotypes from the faults of few
We all know the familiar red and blue
flashing lights on the side of the high
way, but our reactions vary. For some, the
police are necessary
enforcers of the
law, without whom
society would cer
tainly struggle. For
others, the enormous
responsibility and
power we entrust in
our police force is
not well-placed.
Between these
viewpoints is a broad
spectrum of condi-
that the police are
tional opinions
usually a social benefit, except in certain
cases when they “go overboard.”
This concept of “going overboard,”
or police misconduct, is subject to our
opinions on how far police need to go in
order to keep the peace. Take Ferguson,
for instance.
Impending whether Darren Wilson
will be criminally charged, we will soon
see whether his decision was really made
with the best of intentions. Regardless,
the damage has been done, and in the
eyes of many, Ferguson has now become
an example of what happens when one
group of people or officials is given too
much power.
The police, being human, are not
without faults, and it is not fair to make
a blanket assumption that the mis
takes of a few are true of all police. But
wrongdoings must still be addressed and
handled with care.
One of such wrongdoings can be lax
or negligent behavior.
Consider, for example, a report on
the New Orleans Police Department
released last week that revealed more
than one thousand sex crime reports filed
over the past three years were ignored.
Although the issue has been localized to
the latency of five special unit detectives,
it will likely negatively affect the per
ception of the police force New Orleans
citizens. Unfortunately, these cases are
nothing new.
There is no doubt when even one
officer fails in his or her duty, people
get hurt. Police misconduct of any kind,
whether intentional or unintentional,
should not be taken lightly.
Above all, the police exist to maintain
justice and ensure safety, but this does
not excuse officers from abuse of their
heightened position in any form.
Although much of this discussion
has focused on the negative aspects of
the police force in society, I feel it’s
appropriate to mention we shouldn’t
necessarily generalize our ideas on the
police based on the faulty actions of a
few officers.
Looking back at the examples of
Ferguson and New Orleans, the ques
tionable acts have been traced to one
officer and five detectives, respectively.
Nevertheless, it feels like we take such
opportunities to assume these unsound
officers are the norm, when in reality,
they should be considered the deviation.
As children, we are taught the police
is a force “for greater good,” and we have
the choice now whether wc still want to
believe that. The key is to remember the
police, like anything else, are not without
faults, and we should be careful before
assuming the nature of the whole by the
actions of a few.
•S
iL