I’d Rather Not Watch Anne Hathaway’s Uterus, Thanks
October 2, 2012 by Kelsey Hazzard
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
For those of you who are not familiar with D.C., Express is a short newspaper put out by the Washington Post for people to read on the subway. Today’s Express included a short blurb informing us that Anne Hathaway got married. I don’t know much about Anne Hathaway, but she seems nice. Good for her on getting married. I hope she has a long and happy life with her new husband. The title of this blurb is “Uterus Watch Begins.”
Seriously? I understand the excitement over the possibility of a new celebrity baby– babies are adorable and I love them as much as the next person– but uterus watch?! This is not looking forward to someone’s achievement of motherhood. This is not looking forward to the growth and birth of a new member of the human race. This is simply reducing a woman to one body part. That’s practically the definition of objectification.
Also, nothing in the body of the article indicates that Hathaway is trying to conceive right away. Give her a little space, would you? She just got married two days ago. Yeesh. Do we really need to be “watching her uterus” so that the whole world knows the second that she reproduces?
It’s also worth pointing out that, if Anne Hathaway does want to be a mom, she could become one through adoption.
Supposedly the Washington Post is a pretty liberal paper. But when it comes to respecting motherhood, babies, and women generally, it seems they have a ways to go.