advertisement
In the midst of a US Presidential election that the world is following closely, a New York City tabloid published nude photographs of Melania Trump, wife of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. The photographs were taken during Melania’s modelling days in the 1990s – and show her wearing nothing but high heels.
Photographer Ale de Basseville recalls that Melania was never uncomfortable doing the photoshoot. At the time of the shoot in 1995, she had recently arrived in New York City, after modelling stints in Paris and Milan.
Why have these photographs surfaced now? It is either a strategic (if misogynistic) move to lessen Trump’s appeal with voters, showing people the hypocrite he is, when he says he believes in ‘American values’ or an attempt to bolster his vote banks by introducing Trump as the candidate with the sexiest wife.
There’s a theory that suggests that the photographs merely serve to distract from the criticism against Donald Trump after the Muslim American parents of a soldier killed in Iraq spoke out against him strongly.
It is hard to believe that the Post has just “acquired” and “released” these previously unpublished photographs and disseminated them just for information’s sake. This is not information that is vital to the public, nor is it ‘breaking news’.
The idea that First Lady must ‘be’ a particular way and demonstrate a particular degree of virtue is patriarchal in itself. It is premised on the fact that an aspiring President’s choice of soul mate should be made, keeping in mind public opinion. Moreover, it means that a woman’s ideology, beliefs and aspirations should be altered and tweaked so that people retain their faith in the institution of the White House.
The New York Post is implying that the First Lady will be nothing more than an object of lust, somebody to think of naked every time you see them.
“You have never seen a potential First Lady like this”, the front page reads.
Prior to holding the position of First Lady, Bird Johnson was the chairman of a radio station, Patricia Nixon was a high school teacher, Elizabeth Ford was a dancer and Hillary Clinton was a lawyer. While each of these First Ladies practised a profession different from each other – and were remarkably diverse in themselves – no headline would exclaim salaciously over the difference in their careers.
Then why must this mediocre, patronising headline be used for a model who in the course of her career, took photographs of her body, which is common practice in her occupation? Is being a model not dignified enough to be seen as something ‘normal’?
The Post tries hard to draw a parallel. From trashy to classy, from naked to donning ‘designer dresses’, from modelling for a ‘now defunct’ magazine to speaking at the DNC, Melania Trump’s life has been made to sound like a rags to riches story, made possible only by her husband.
The story, written by a woman, uses adjectives like ‘leggy’, ‘steamy’ and ‘bombshell’ to portray a sexualised image of Melania. Words like ‘talented’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘brilliant’ to describe the model or the photographs are not only missing in this article, but are not even hinted at.
There is confusion about whether Melania had any control over the circulation of these images. It would be natural to assume that the circulation of any kind of controversial material, while one’s husband is running for President would be resisted. This would only mean that these photographs were property of the photographer himself and that he sold his rights in order to help the Post get their big scoop.
Trump’s reaction to these photographs was positive, as were many others’. Key adviser to Trump, Jason Miller, said there was no problem with the Post’s publication of the nude photograph of his wife on its Sunday cover.
(Source: Melania Trump Like You’ve Never Seen Her Before, PTI)