Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Big girls don’t cry

Christina Hendricks - Globes1

So, while reading The New York Times coverage of the Golden Globes I learned two things: 1) Christina Hendricks is a “big girl.” And 2) Jennifer Aniston, Kate Hudson and Courteney Cox have “put on a little weight,” particularly in their “upper arms.” It’s moments like this when I’m certain a forehead-sized dent will appear on my desk from all the times my head keeps hitting it with frustration.

The former was in a critique of Christina’s dress (“You don’t put a big girl in a big dress.”), which I thought it looked lovely – all delightful peach against the delicious cream of her skin. And the latter was in a back-handed compliment about some actresses’ supposed weight gain with the headline: “Now Scrutinizing – A Rounder Globes.” Oy. [EDIT: Both posts were sadly written by women. Double oy.]

The Christina item also first ran with a distorted photo that – surprise, surprise – made Christina look more squat. The post now runs with an editor’s note saying the photo was “slightly distorted inadvertently due to an error during routine processing” and has since been replaced. Funny how that “error during routine processing” didn’t stretch her to look skinnier instead.

Look, I’m not sure in what universe Christina is a “big girl.” Yes, portions of her body are large – two in particular. But being curvaceous does not equal big. It’s like when Jennifer Lopez was being called full-figured just because she had an ass. This is the deranged looking glass of the beauty business.

Same goes for the Jennifer/Kate/Courteney arms race. Instead of just celebrating what the author perceives as their new, somewhat heavier physiques, the blurb makes sure to call them round both in the title and the story. Just imagine if they’d used the word “healthier” instead of “rounder.” Also, man, I’d kill for fat upper arms like theirs.

I guess what bugs me about these stories the most is that publications still feel it’s standard practice to comment on women’s shapes and sizes. I don’t recall any Globes fashion pieces commenting on “pudgy Ricky Gervais” or “bloated-faced Gerard Butler.” If a guy puts on weight, it’s unspoken. When a woman does, it’s just open season. It’s just so...tiring.

Though, I guess I should really thank the NYT. Because without their, shall we say, weighty commentary, I wouldn’t get to post more pictures of the Christina. And that, for me, really is big.

Christina Hendricks - Globes2

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

seconds the exploitation of any excuse to post those photos...

Damn!

pickpocket said...

Oh, Dorothy, I am so with you on this! Celebrity culture is warped and twisted. It seems totally absurd that anyone in any one of those pictures would be called "fat" or "round" armed. Makes me wonder what useless ugly pudges are doing the critiquing. Obviously a bunch of creepy, ugly, frustrated men.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but in what universe are these arms fat??? Have we gone mad?!

Kate said...

Normally I wouldn't encourage anyone to read the comments on an online news (or "news") article, but the ones on this are almost unanimously in agreement with you (and me, and many others), which is delightful. :)

Robin said...

I don't love Christina's dress -- or any of the other '80s-inspired numbers that seem to be popping up lately -- but it's pretty absurd to call her a "big girl" just because she's got breasts and hips. I think the most apt description would be "woman", perhaps in the So I Married An Axe Murderer style. ("Whoaaaa, man!")

Jennifer, Kate, and Courtney don't have fat arms. They have muscles. The fact that they're not flexing in the middle of the red carpet doesn't make it any less true. Yeesh, Hollywood, get a grip.

Then again, this is the same press that posted pictures of Neil Gaiman and only noted him as Amanda Palmer's "guest". ::sigh:: Don't get me wrong; I like Amanda and she looked fabulous in her mostly-nakedness. But The Gaiman has been a best-selling author for decades, and they were there to support a movie based on one of his books. At the very least they could have taken two seconds to notice that he's her fiance. [/tangent]

Jan_Ham said...

I agree there is much to be irritated with in this sort of commentary, which in addition to ignoring the fact that lovely as is the slender, the svelte, and the lissome, so is lovely the voluptuous, the ample, the bodacious and curvy, and in addition and beyond insulting what is equally lovely, there is an implied insult to those who appreciate the second as much or more than the first. As if appreciation for what is lush is somehow unseemly. Isn't it enough I must restrict my diet, my intake of wine and spirits, my devotion to all things hedonistic? Must I also be lectured against such things as the magnificence of Christina Hendricks in that dress?

alice said...

Oh, my. I really think that the gossip rags just need to hire far better writers, since those folks are obviously flailing around because they lack anything meaningful to say. Round, indeed.

I will say that I think Hendricks' dress has some unfortunate structural issues - when you're doing as much heavy lifting as that bodice is, think satin over boning creates some weird issues, and she ends up looking like she's got a cell phone in her bra. But all I see are folks apoplectic over the fact that her awesome body is in an awesome, attention-getting dress, and Isn't It Startling?

Critique the dresses, sure, but the constant surprise that not everyone has the same (unchanging, airbrushed, supposedly "perfect") body is getting old.

Anonymous said...

right on snarker!

I think the dress has some issues (i think it's be Project Runway winner Christian Siriano. More TV trivia) but the press is thick-headed.

Love you Ms Hendricks!

jennifer from pittsburgh said...

"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months."
-Oscar Wilde
It's horrible how these women are trotted out in this dog and pony show every awards season only to be torn to shreds for their dress, their hair, their weight, whatever.

taylor said...

"Yes, portions of her body are large – two in particular."

<3

I love her figure, it's so classic and bombshell-esque. Wow, her breasts truly are huge, though. I am curious to see them unhindered by said peach dress, for...research purposes?

Summer Waldron said...

*THUD*! I need a paper bag to breath into...

WannabeVirginia W. said...

She is smokin' that is all I am going to say.

tlsintx said...

Lordy. That girl has got the goods!

Yay Snarker. Next time there's an awards show, I say let's all dish on the guys' looks. That'd be fun and fair's fair.

Norma Desmond said...

This crap pisses me off so much, I really can't think about it too hard.

Big Shamu said...

Have to chime in here to add a Detailed Compulsive Photochopper Two Cents concerning the two photos of Christina. While I can't say for certain the motives for the Squatty picture, I can make a fairly educated photoshop guess. In the normal picture there is a long dark shadow along the bottom right corner. It's not pretty and I'm sure the layout people wanted it gone. There's ways to do that. What looks liked happened is that the photo editor took the cheapest, easiest way to eliminate the shadow and that was resizing the photo to fill the same layout hole but without cutting off her head or bottom of the dress. That means stretching the photo horizontally (think Silly Putty and the Sunday comics) and making Christina wider than what she really is.
In my world Christina is not big by any stretch of the imagination but I can't blast away at the Times for deliberately making her seem squatty. I will blast away at them for doing a ass crappy job of photo editing.

Kate said...

Once again, you've hit the nail on the head!

My husband and I were watching some show the other night and he said something about how poorly some actress was aging. It pissed me off (and I told him so) that he and many other people feel like it's fine to bash on what women look like, but god forbid anyone say anything when Luke Wilson or some other man starts packing on the extra pounds or looking a little ragged. And this shit about bashing on women (like Christina) who are FABULOUS? Eff the crap out of that.

Your Camp Counselor said...

Gee...all I can say is, thanks for the mammaries.

frannie said...

They are just all fat, OLD, ugly men writing these pieces. It's amazing to me that such haters have a voice.

I wish I had such big, round, problems! You go GIRLS!!!!

Vicki said...

Fucking hell - Christina... divine.

Yei said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Simbelmynë said...

I can't get over somebody saying she looks _Bad_ in any way. Ok, the dress wouldn't be my choice, but she's standing there rocking that camera in each shot.
The media are soooooo confusing. if you're thin you're anorexic, if you're normal you're "big".
I stopped listening long ago

Lorelle said...

YUMMY

Anonymous said...

oh, my dear lord. The BOOBS!!!! The RED LIPSTICK!!! The WHOLE PACKAGE!!!. Oy indeed.

Anonymous said...

If this trend keeps up -some gossip rag will start calling Kate Moennig fat soon.

So ridiculous. Christina looked fabulous. I think it was Joan River's who claimed she couldn't see anything but those puppies. Hellooooooo,

Alicia said...

This is ridiculous. Christina Hendricks is NOT fat. I'm surprised she's even able to stand upright given her bust size and how small she really is! Women with breasts that large are usually much heavier.

roark said...

all that dress really needs is some straps.....the support is necessary.

she is a one hot woman.

D said...

Criminey---it was just a coupla years ago that you could count Courteney Cox's upper ribs one by one. Now that she actually looks like a woman whose bones you wouldn't necessarily break just by giving her an enthusiastic hug, these small-___'d critics find reason to complain? Balderdash.

Making Space said...

OK so first off I'm on board with dissing the "she's big"comments, and also I'd feed the three extra skinny girls a few pizzas, but that's just me.

Second, if this Christina Hendricks is on TV, I really need to re-think my lack of interest in TV. Dayum.

nadja said...

this girl is so sexy and the body i love it real women curves

Tina said...

Arrgh! It's stuff like this that makes me go insane over the fashion and beauty industry. And I'm glad I haven't been giving New York Times by money, and I'm keeping it that way. They're not getting a penny from me as long as they call girls like this "big". I could seriously just scream out of frustration and anger right now!

Laneia said...

holy lord she is beautiful. i was going to say something smart? and then the last image you have up there wiped my brain clean. so.

oh! i remember! i was going to say "fat arms psssssh!" see? totally smart.

Jimena O. B. said...

I can´t belive the mind of the people who called those incredible women "round" armed or big.
The person who wrote the post must have serious problems with her weigth, and even she´s a little jealous because everybody wolud want to be with the gourgeos Christina (and her incredible boobs!!!)

supertex said...

uuuuuuuunf christina!

never seen mad men, but she is absolutely gorgeous

Anonymous said...

In the very last photo of the beautiful Christina the woman behind her is definatly scammin on her golden globes...