With hubby traveling for work again and two out of three of us home folks sick
again, I haven't had much time to blog, google, or interneticate (my new term for communicating via the internet). As I haven't really done a broad search for this topic I'm about to present it's fair to say this topic has bluntly popped up in the news recently. Women's appearance. "What is the whole fuss about???", I want to shout out! Come on, is it
headline news in this day and age that Hillary Clinton gave a public speech wearing only lipstick?! With her hair down?! Seriously. When did lipstick stand for no make-up anyway Instead of the newsworthy point being that she doesn't have to care about her appearance as much anymore since she already
lost the last presidential race, why not simply point out the fact that she looks great at this given date and time. For a 64 year old. Woman. No, let me rephrase even that. Why isn't the point on what she actually had to say? Jeez. Now, if the focus has to be, for some bizarre reason, on her looks, why not just say that she looks good, as she does. For a person in her position, moreover. Think of Mr. President Clinton back in the not-so-good-old days when he metamorphosized into a gray-haired old man with sunken eyes. Not a good look for anyone, male or female.
Another body fuss
article I found even more interesting. One of the Finnish daily tabloids put together a pictorial of "Brave mothers who reveal their bellies: My body after birth - see photos" (my translation). I have to admit these mom's, though only belly-full and faceless in the pictorial, are rather brave since 6 months after my latest birthing experience I'm still rather sensitive with my own belly. Of course this tabloid presents these tummies in a somewhat sensationalist manner, i.e. the point is to gawk at the horrid stretch marks ripped across wobbling gastro-cellulite. Not cool, I say. I'm a woman and mom with wobbles and ripples around my own bellybutton, with enough of both for my 3 year old to ask what was it I had instead of a bellybutton (since it's pretty much disappeared, lost its former shape) and whether the "cuts" on my hips hurt when they happened. So I'm the first to admit I could join in the semi-freak show, no problem. But, as a woman with baby-damage I both agree those women were brave and that some of those bellies were amazing - visibly untouched by all the belly squirming, believe it or not. Looking deeper into the issue though, again, what is the fuss all about? Is it yet again so newsworthy that most women do not gestate and pop out babies unscathed? Personally, having experienced two beautiful and non-traumatic births, I'm amazed that my body doesn't show more of what these two amazing but chunky 4kg+ baby boys rummaged in me. Physical healing is an awesome process. So what if I'm not going to sport that bikini this summer?! I wouldn't change these stretch marks for the world since they are signs of the best that's ever happened to me - well, not the stretching and tearing but why I stretched and tore, my irreplaceable boys. Sure, I'd love to have that toned flat-yet-muscular belly that I can see some mom's have been blessed to get back (I never had it in the first place!). But what does it say about our culture that post-pregnancy bellies still have shock value? Honestly, I think here we have a lot to learn from cultures where bellies are not shunned be they Western model-value or not. Think of India and how saris show off all kinds of tummies, in a beautiful way I might add. Well, I'm an anthropologist so it goes with the job to promote variable bellies and distant cultures ;)
More seriously, though, I find it a bit sad that the female body is still so socially repressed that AnnaLynne McCord's make-up free twitter face was the center of
Hollywood Gossip. At least in this case the fuss had a good point.