![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ricevermicelliEntirely non-work safe link to a statue of Brittney Spears in labor.
Some nutcase has gone and done a statue. Of a naked popstar in labor. On a bearskin rung. Because she's a "pro-life role model" and might help women wavering on whether to have an abortion "make the right choice."
And it's so wrong and awful that I can't possibly fail to write about it.
First: Brittney had a C-section.
Second: Brittney doesn't appear to have consented to this statue, which depicts her in an intensely private moment (which never happened), but that might not matter, since it doesn't particularly look like her. I don't have a lot of respect for Brittney Spears. I'm fairly sure I'm spelling her name wrong. She is my favorite argument in support of gay marriage rights. However, she'd be justified if this made her rippingly angry.
Third: The bearskin rug. Who in her right mind would choose to labor on a giant fur thing, which various byproducts of labor (blood, fecal matter, amniotic fluid, placenta, and so on) will stain forever? Everyone I have even heard of giving birth at home has opted for cheap sheets with a shower curtain underneath.
Fourth: The position in which this statue depicts her is absolutely mucking useless for childbirth. Women give birth on all fours, yes, but giving birth is best accomplished with the birth canal below the uterus, not above, and the spinal arch depicted pains me to contemplate, and I'm not heavily pregnant. The position depicted rots for labor. It is, however, real spiffy for sex. The statue looks like a pregnant woman reading the newspaper while waiting to be sodomized.
This is the crux of the problem for me. This is not a depiction of a woman in labor. This is a depiction of some whackjob's fantasy about what a labor might look like, if the woman involved was dead sexy and totally unconcerned about what was going on. It's pretty sick. More sick than pretty. It's also a lousy argument for the pro-life cause, an insult to women dealing with unplanned pregnancies, and unforgiveably bad art.
Some nutcase has gone and done a statue. Of a naked popstar in labor. On a bearskin rung. Because she's a "pro-life role model" and might help women wavering on whether to have an abortion "make the right choice."
And it's so wrong and awful that I can't possibly fail to write about it.
First: Brittney had a C-section.
Second: Brittney doesn't appear to have consented to this statue, which depicts her in an intensely private moment (which never happened), but that might not matter, since it doesn't particularly look like her. I don't have a lot of respect for Brittney Spears. I'm fairly sure I'm spelling her name wrong. She is my favorite argument in support of gay marriage rights. However, she'd be justified if this made her rippingly angry.
Third: The bearskin rug. Who in her right mind would choose to labor on a giant fur thing, which various byproducts of labor (blood, fecal matter, amniotic fluid, placenta, and so on) will stain forever? Everyone I have even heard of giving birth at home has opted for cheap sheets with a shower curtain underneath.
Fourth: The position in which this statue depicts her is absolutely mucking useless for childbirth. Women give birth on all fours, yes, but giving birth is best accomplished with the birth canal below the uterus, not above, and the spinal arch depicted pains me to contemplate, and I'm not heavily pregnant. The position depicted rots for labor. It is, however, real spiffy for sex. The statue looks like a pregnant woman reading the newspaper while waiting to be sodomized.
This is the crux of the problem for me. This is not a depiction of a woman in labor. This is a depiction of some whackjob's fantasy about what a labor might look like, if the woman involved was dead sexy and totally unconcerned about what was going on. It's pretty sick. More sick than pretty. It's also a lousy argument for the pro-life cause, an insult to women dealing with unplanned pregnancies, and unforgiveably bad art.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-24 05:42 pm (UTC)In that light? It's not bad.