Tokyo preggos go nude

It's hard to believe that back in 2006, the image of Britney 'doing a Demi' for Harper's Bazaar was actually banned from display in Tokyo subway stations for being 'too stimulating'. A censored version with a big black band hovering over Brit's bump was used instead.

Being naked and pregnant, however, has suddenly become more popular with Japanese women. Apparently, a Japanese pop star called Hitomi posed naked and pregnant in an album photo in June 2008. According to local media, the picture was displayed on large billboards over busy streets in Tokyo and the related photo book became a bestseller, selling more than 10,000 copies in its first week of publication.

Now mums-to-be pay around 35,000 yen ($368.20) for a studio photo shoot, which takes less than two hours in "Ixchel."

"Before this boom, women didn't know where to go to take these kinds of pictures even though they wanted to. Because of media attention, they easily found our studio," said Natsuko Takada, the owner of photo studio "Ixchel."

This is really interesting because when I was in Tokyo in January 2007 I found absolutely no images of Japanese pregnant women who were showing skin. Maternity clothes were really dowdy and all of the parenting/pregnancy magazines targeted to young women used cartoons and other really childish images to talk about being a mother. Being a 'sexy' mum was definitely not culturally appropriate. Interestingly, as I noted in a post at the time, the only images of motherhood that were even remotely 'racy' were of Euro-American pregnant models.

Britney is back

Brit is back. She got paid $1 million to do an interview with Ok! in which the only interesting thing she says has to do with Jamie Lynn:

"I was shocked a little bit," says Brit. "She’s always been the baby, and now the baby was having a baby. It was mind-boggling."

Source: http://www.okmagazine.com/news/view/8415

Britney Spears is not a circus side show

After reading the 85,000th story about Britney Spears and her highly marketable mental breakdown, one wonders when the point comes that we can say enough is enough. The media has taken a perverse delight in exposing this young woman and her many failings which, so many have argued, she has brought on herself.

I have been fascinated by Britney for as long as I can remember, so much so, she has been the subject of my own academic research in the past few years. Yet, I am deeply saddened that this young woman has suddenly ceased to be a human in the eyes of the public. Sure, we all have had a bit of a laugh at her expense the countless times she appeared walking down the street without shoes, for attempting to wear some of the most heinous outfits imaginable with a straight face, and for marrying the man we now know as K-Fed. We've judged her for what some reckon is tantamount to 'child abuse'; driving with her son on her lap, nearly dropping a baby to save a drink, for perpetually leaving her young boys with nannies to go out and party. Now we laugh because she has been 'committed', her fortune in the hands of her sociopathic 'parents', and her children taken away from her.

We seem to forget about all of the moments when Britney was sparkling; for all of the moments that made her the most famous figure in the media world. Her first video clip as a naughty school girl, naked and pregnant on the cover of Bazaar, busting out in little more than an invisible 'skin' body suit for the MTV music awards with a python hanging around her neck, and for managing to be the girlfriend to Justin Timberlake when both of them were the toast of the town. These were the times when Britney was on top of the world and now it seems, everyone is waiting with bated breath to see our Britney fall flat on her face.

Whereas so many young people aspire to fame and fortune, the Britney saga only exposes the cold reality of celebrity-dom; that there is such a thing as being too famous. Britney, like other celebrities, need the paparazzi to keep them famous, but no one asks for constant surveillance. The 'Britney Economy', the 250 million dollar industry devoted to capturing every waking moment of her life, is the reason why Britney will never be left alone. Yet, when a paparazzi caravan the length of a football field is trailing her ambulance on the way to the psych ward, I think it's time to leave Britney to suffer out of the spotlight.

If, as a number of inside 'sources' claim, our Britney is on suicide watch, it will be no surprise if the relentless media presence in her life does indeed kill her. According to Beverly Hills psychotherapist, Rebecca Roy, "Not only do [celebrity] women have to deal with an impossibly high body image standard, but they are savagely attacked when they don't meet expectations on that [mental health] front." It is no wonder that stars like Britney or Amy Winehouse or even Kate Moss were aggressively attacked following allegations of drug abuse or psychiatric crisis that certain male celebrities seem to walk away from with an uncomfortable ease. When women 'fail', they fall hard and in front of a crowd of millions.

Whereas Owen Wilson was left to privately recover after his shock suicide attempt, Britney Spears has been nailed up on the proverbial cross and we are all here to watch her bleed.

Sources: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3285507.ece
http://jezebel.com/351565/are-women-with-issues-treated-as-sensitively-as-men

Moral panic surrounding JL Spears

Well, from last glance, there are no less than 1,542 news items devoted to the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy 'shock' today. After a good 24 hours of critical thinking time, I am pretty appalled by the world's reaction (and even my own) to this young woman's pregnancy. This morning as I ate my toast, every breakfast show devoted at least two segments to 'How To Talk To Your Kids About Sex' as if the appearance of a pregnant 16 year old would induce thousands of 'innocent' teenagers to drop their drawers, find a partner, and start having illegitimate children as if teen pregnancy is a new phenomenon. Last year alone, there were 800,000 babies born to teen mothers in America.

Jamie Lynn is just more famous and a very rich version of the average pregnant teen. I take umbrage that the media has positioned this woman as a 'bad role model' as if she signed up for being a 'good role model' simply by virtue of playing a popular character on a wholesome kids show. The fact that Spears has been sort of forced to say this baby was made irresponsibly and that she didn't make the right decision is very sad for the baby who undoubtedly will grow up one day and find out that he/she was a 'mistake'.

Then I came across a number of news articles that were really shocking. As she is technically underage and her pregnancy legally considered a result of 'statutory rape' the internet rumour mill is buzzing with suggestions that her 18yr old boyfriend could be charged despite the fact that the sex they have clearly been engaging in is most likely consensual. Whether or not these charges are actionable remains to be seen, however, the very suggestion that Spears is a 'victim' of a predatory 'older' man is absolutely ridiculous. There is a thriving moral panic surrounding chastity and virginity when it comes to young women and I find it really hypocritical that allegations of rape are thrown around when it comes to a young woman but when young men engage in sex with older women (as in all of those cases with young boys and their female teachers) everyone cheers him on for the 'stud' that he supposedly is. Similarly, as much as mother Lynn Spears has had a rocky relationship with Britney and the press, the suggestion that Jamie Lynn's pregnancy is the direct result of her 'bad' parenting is unfair. Why doesn't Dad get slammed for failing to preach the virtues of chastity?

Whilst undeniably everyone agrees that becoming a parent at sixteen is less than ideal, we all have to keep in mind that these young celebrities are living in a pretty fast paced world filled with sex, drugs, a whole heap of money and a lot of rock n' roll. Jamie Lynn may be 16, but she's not stupid and surely knows how to take care of herself. If she feels old enough to be in a committed relationship with her boyfriend (who she met at Church!) who are we to say that she will be the epitome of 'bad mother'.

The best thing to come out of this strange situation? At least all of Jamie-Lynn's bad press is giving Britney a much-deserved break.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/19/viacom-jamie-spears-face-markets-cx_er_1219markets01.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/19/spears.statutory.rape/?iref=mpstoryview

Women are sexist too?

I recently bought the new issue of Marie Claire featuring that cover photo of Christina Aguilera naked and pregnant. Given that every news agency picked up on the story weeks before the actual issue was released, I can't say that article was surprising or in any way different from the countless pregnant cover stories that have been churned out in the past decade. However, this did occur to me.

In November, I wrote about Maxim's Hottest Pregnant Women, Ever feature as just another avenue for men's magazines to objectify women's bodies. Yet, as I reflect on the avalanche of women's magazines doing exactly the same thing, although perhaps less overt, I'm finding it harder to believe that the public sexualisation of pregnant bodies is forward-thinking or progressive. When it comes down to it, a pregnant naked body on a women's mag is a money-maker. Marie Claire isn't interested in promoting safe motherhood; they are jumping on the bandwagon that men's magazines have already cashed in on starting with the forefather, Playboy. Women want to look at other women's bodies and pregnancy is no different. We call men sexist pigs for expounding the value of a Brazilian wax or size FFF breasts. Yet, when a women's magazine puts a naked Britney or Christina on the cover, we (as women) fail to recognise that it is the women's body on the cover that is the focus, not her mind. Back in November, Us magazine launched a poll asking readers who looked 'hotter' in their pregnant photo shoot. This is no different from Maxim's poll of the hottest pregnant women. As women (and feminists, at that) we are not infallible. In fact, we are also complicit in the objectification of women's bodies.


Source: http://www.usmagazine.com/Us_Poll_Who_Has_the_Hotter_Pregnancy_Cover_Christina_or_Britney

Nicole v. Britney: baring their lady lumps

Due to popular demand (okay, 1 reader), I am going to talk about Nicole Ritchie and her bump. I've been avoiding it for a very long time now (as you might have noticed) but I thought this would be a good opportunity to say a few things about baby bumps and bikinis. Up until recently, being pregnant and wearing a bikini was simply not on. Sure, you're probably thinking...ever since Demi Moore pregnancy is sexy! Women can be out and proud with their bumps...

In reality, however, the exposure of the bump is still a bit taboo outside of Hollywood even though maternity fashion is tighter, a bit more low-rise and definitely low-cut. Wearing a bikini during pregnancy especially challenges conventional boundaries between the feminine body and the external world where the male gaze dictates the norms for feminine beauty, body shape and comportment. This is what led me to my thought about Nicole Ritchie. I am really surprised not to find crazy rants about how 'obscene' it is that a pregnant woman is wearing a string bikini when only a few years ago people went nuts over pictures of Britney Spears sporting the same duds (or lack thereof...) in the picture above in 2005 and again in 2006. Her body was described as grotesque: words such as 'fat' and 'gross' were used with reckless abandon along with suggestions that at almost 9 months pregnant no one wanted to see Britney's big 'fat' stomach.

Fast forward to Nicole Ritchie and her beach attire this week. According to all the newspaper articles from the past few days, Ritchie looks 'amazing', 'sexy' and everyone seems to be pleased that she is happily 'flaunting' her baby belly. There has been no mention of 'fat' or 'gross'.

So how can we explain these seemingly contradictory positions regarding the exposure of the bump?

One one hand, I'd like to think that the world is getting a little less conservative when it comes to the representation of pregnancy. However, I think that is giving a bit too much credit to progressive thinking. My feeling is that the way that these bikini-clad pregnant bodies are depicted in the media all comes down to celebrity status. As everyone knows, Britney Spears is public enemy #1 when it comes to motherhood. No matter what she does, Britney will eternally be known as the world's worst mother in the media. Nicole Ritchie, on the other hand, has garnered an inordinate amount of sympathy because of her 1) alleged eating disorder 2) her run-in with the law 3) her jail time.

Ritchie's pregnancy has completely changed her celebrity status. Since falling pregnant she has vowed that her life has totally changed; she wants to be a good mother, she is planning to get married and she has changed all of her previously 'bad' lifestyle habits to protect her baby. Therefore, her position as a 'good' mother in pregnancy is reflected in the comments about her body. Pregnancy is seemingly more beautiful and glorious and celebrated when the pregnant woman is seen to be a 'good' mother. Britney's body, on the other hand, is represented as 'unfit' and 'fat' because she is a 'bad' mother. Moreover, Spears’ image as a ‘sexy mother’ (unlike Nicole) suggests the ‘anti-mother’, in her physical subversion of cultural mores that make women sexless ‘good mothers’ who are completely focused on the well-being of the fetus. Britney is never depicted as actually caring about her children: she is irresponsible when she is pregnant and when she is not pregnant. Nicole's body can be 'sexy' because her behaviour marks her as a 'good' mother and this is tied to her willingness to set aside her desire to be thin and instead she has embraced a maternal, more feminine body.

Britney Spears: faux pas or just fat?

Seriously. If I hear another balding, middle-aged male news presenter make another crack about how 'fat' Britney Spears looked at the MTV VMAs the other night, I swear I will have to throw down.

After two children, more power to you, Britney. At least your entire torso doesn't fit up my sleeve.

http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20053775_20055600,00.html

Britney's 'bad' mothering according to Us

Seriously, when did Us magazine become the authority on parenting? It never ceases to amaze me how what once was a fairly daggy celeb rag selling copies only for its good photos has become the American celebrity goss mag hovering on the same plane as People. Today, emboldened by its market share of gossip hungry twenty and thirty-something urban women, Us derives some perverse delight in castigating Britney Spears for everything she has done 'wrong' which according to the editors is 'bad mommy behavior'. Who writes this rubbish? As I said in my last post, when are people going to leave Britney Spears the bloody hell alone? Why is it that we have to constantly rehash the car seat incident, the falling over that nearly caused her to drop the baby. Some of the slides in the Us gallery show Britney going out with her family minus the children. When did it become illegal to leave the kids at home with the nanny? What really gets me going is this antiquated notion that 'good' mothers must be selfless at all costs. Today, the cultural expectations placed on the shoulders of mothers are so heavy that doing your best is not good enough anymore; motherhood entails a set of behavioral guidelines that women must follow and against which they are judged. I find it really interesting that Britney always seems to be the target of this 'bad' mother discourse particularly when most photographs of Spears show her with her children. How often do you see other celebrities with their children regularly?

To view the slideshow: http://www.usmagazine.com/britney_baby_drama

Oops, she did it again: save Britney or save her sons?

Speaking of moral panics, it fails to surprise me that Britney Spears is once again being castigated as the 'bad mother'. If putting 'soda' in bottles or fending off the prying lenses of the stalkarazzi are the worst things that this woman has done as a mother, I'm not sure that she is really 'dangerous' as tenuously truthful Us Weekly (apparently a trusted source of parenting advice these days) shouts in this week's headline.

There is a difference between dangerous and clueless. When I was a kid, one of my childhood friends was given juice in a bottle every night when she went to bed and her teeth all rotted. Her parents weren't trying to cause her lifelong dental problems. They were young and didn't have a clue. Britney doesn't have a clue. And you know why that's okay? Because she has a whole team of nannies to do the things that she isn't able to do herself. As much as people want to bang on about the 'crisis' situation in the Spears household, I am sure that those kids are very well-looked after (even if it's not necessarily by their own parents). There are plenty of parents in the world who actually abuse their children. The claims that she is most definitely 'bipolar' and her behaviour erratic seem a little harsh even if they are true.

According to Us, when Britney and her children stayed in a Pacific Palisades home:

“She ate tacos on the bedroom floor!” a source says of the home. “She got crumbs and grease everywhere. She let her babies and her dog roam the floor. She left the bed a mess – I don’t know what’s wrong with her.”

Shock! Horror! A mess! She's not responsible but she's certainly not dangerous.

Britney has been constantly scrutinised since she became a mother and I find it interesting that the 'bad mother' media slant never seems to change despite the fact that her behaviour has not always been 'erratic'. And why is it that Kevin Federline comes off looking like Dad of the Year? This is the same guy who left Shar Jackson WHILE SHE WAS PREGNANT, leeched off Britney for a few years, partied like a rockstar and only NOW decides that he wants full custody of the children ostensibly so he can get more money out of their divorce settlement.

Lay off the girl. She's making a lot of tabloid magazine editors very very wealthy as a result of all the salacious gossip bandied about regarding her personal life. No wonder she's going crazy.

Sources: http://lifeandstylemag.hollywood.com/2007/07/in_life_style_now_britneys_bab_1.php

http://www.usmagazine.com/cover_story_6