Thursday, January 21, 2010


I do not know which to comment on first - the fact that people are mad at the NY Times bloggers, who called Christina Hendricks "big" or the fact that "big" is an insult.

It is like two steps forward, one step back. It is about time that we, the public, give a little guff to those that call out size negative zero actresses for being fat. I think I am actually shell shocked that people are annoyed that Ms. Hendricks was called out for looking...well, enviably curvaceous. Are we the same people that will only shop at Banana Republic because their size 8 is labelled a size 6?! Well, good for us I guess.

So, about this word "big". In polite society ladies with a certain extra whoop-de-doo were described as "big boned" or "big girls". White gloved or not we know that "big" means "fat". Well, if Christina Hendricks is fat, baby bring on the chocolate cake!

In all seriousness, our perspective of weight is so scarred we no longer have a rational lens through which to view normal. As a society we are obese. From our sedentary lifestyle behind a computer / Wii / television screen we obsess and harp on the weight of celebrities. We hunt for cellulite on their bikini clad bodies, we are scandalized when they are photo shopped on the cover of magazines, and we scoff at the fact that they wore a strapless dress when their arms were jiggly. All the while we eat what we want, eschew the gym, and grouse about our tight waisted pants.

I don't give a rat's padonkey donk that they are paid to look great. They are not paid to be insulted about their curvaceous body when in fact their body, in this case, is a close representation of a good portion of the population.

I propose Ms. Horyn and Mr. Port of the NY Times wiggle their esteemed rear ends down the red carpet at the Oscars. I would even pay them to look great.


This little gem has been around for awhile - it satisfies the statement necklace craving with recession sensibilities!

No comments:

Post a Comment