Body aspiration oddness
I saw this little story on the BBC website the other day
and I thought to myself: what the actual fuck?
I suppose sometimes it's easy to forget what an easy ride you have if you happen to be in possession, as I am thanks to a 50-50 chance 35 years ago, of a dangly, wrinkly, slightly furry triumverate of fun-sized objects in the groinal region. That does make a lot of things very different - I know I recently said that I was annoyed at being told that I didn't realise just how good I had it, and by and large I stand by that, but things like this remind me just how fortunate you are if you're a chap.
Unlike actresses America Ferrara (who plays Ugly Betty) and Britain's Kate Winslet, Ms Hendricks has kept her full figure, adds McNamara, who last week reviewed Mad Men Series 4.
That figure is reportedly in possession of dimensions around 36-32-36 - although some reports suggest 38-32-38 - and her breasts variously described as a C or D cup.
Honestly, who gives a shit? Here's an attractive-looking actor. I mean, good for her, but so what? I assume the shape she has is down to the fact she is in possession of her skeleton, her organs, her flesh, and whatever she eats and exercises, as well as some bits and bobs in the genetic makeup, and whatever. For anyone else to want to look like that, or aspire to look like that, is of course rather unrealistic, given that it's an entirely different human being. We can't aspire to be tall once we've stopped growing; we can't aspire to be shorter, either, even though I daresay lots of people would like to be.
But the thing that gets me is the obsession with dress sizes, tit sizes, every kind of size, the measurements of perfection, the bed of Procrustes. Can you imagine a male actor being described in such borderline creepy terms of his inside leg, his waist measurement, the size of his arse, how much his balls dangle in his trousers, anything like that? Sure, it happens every now and then. But it's the regularity with which women actors are judged like this that makes it obvious who's really being looked at.
I often point and laugh at this kind of thing in the Mail (e.g. "Anorexia's bad, but look at this fat cow!"), and it's more obvious still in those garishly coloured tat-palaces of magazines that you see littering dentists' waiting rooms and news-stands up and down the country. You know the kind of tacky awfulness I'm on about, like the psychic powers of Closer magazine. But I don't know, it seems to be almost everywhere.
I know some might say that the obsession with weight and body size isn't something that the magazines and the media created, and that they're merely reflecting something that's gone on for years. I suppose there's an element of that, but I'm not entirely convinced by that argument. And others might say that it's right for people to want there to be a 'healthy' ideal body shape, not too fat and not too thin, that everyone should think is 'normal', where people are less at risk of getting diabetes, for example, or damaging their health by not eating enough. I understand that too, but I don't think that's what's going on either.
And I know, too, that it's easy to dismiss those tacky women's mags as being a bit like the Beano or something, and beneath worrying about. But I think that's wrong as well - no point looking down our nose and saying it's somehow exempt from criticism by dint of being so bloody awful. The thing is, why is it even being talked about? Why does it even matter? Do you think if some male minister said men should look more like footballers and less like rugby players it would get the same sort of attention? I can't help but think in the negative.
Anyway, in answer to the question, I don't see anything right or wrong with Christina Hendricks. I've never seen the programme so I don't know whether she's any good in it or not, but I don't suddenly think oh my god, so this is what women should look like now, an hourglass instead of a pear, or an apple, or whatever the hell else is in fashion this week. She is what she is because she is what she is. Which kind of goes for the rest of us as well. But I just think there's a difference about the way these things are presented: with women it seems to be more about body aspiration - wanting to change your shape to look like someone else, or something else, or some ideal - whereas with men it's more like, well, that'd be nice.
It's nowhere near the same if you're a bloke. Sure, there's the muscly guy on the front cover of Men's Health (but I've always thought that was the kind of mag that closeted guys would reach for instead of GT. Could be wrong, but there you go) or something like that, but it's less mainstream; men's mags generally have pictures of women on the front, not other men, and while there's the odd bit and piece about diets and trying to develop that six-pack by the time you get to the beach, it's somehow less serious. I even saw some horrifically surgical kind of corsetry for men when I was in M&S the other day, it was a terrible sight. I think I'd rather look like a darts player than some bloke squeezing himself into a corset, and luckily enough there isn't the same kind of pressure on me to do so, or at least that's my opinion anyway.
I suppose the Hendricks stuff comes from a good place - the idea that 'real women' look different from a lot of people you see in photoshoots and on the TV. Maybe somehow it's seen as adjusting a distorted perception. But everyone's 'real'. Some people are tall and willowy, and perfectly happy and healthy and attractive that way; some are shorter, or wider, or more curvy, or whatever, and just as great, but it doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, or more desirable, or anything. It just makes people the shape and size they are. I suppose we'd all like to be a bit more perfect, but I'd like to be a bloody astronaut. It ain't going to happen. Luckily, I don't have magazines, TV, radio and websites telling me I should be an astronaut. The pressure's off. Maybe that's how good it is to be male.
So what is it worth aspiring to? While I perfectly understand why anyone would want to aspire to be Christina Hendricks, or might like to look that way, or think they should be that way, or think that if they were that way then things might be better, all I aspire to is just to be in a life where I don't have to be beaten down and crushed by the things I aspire to but can't ever achieve. As Ian Dury said "All I want for my birthday is another birthday". I just think that is easier if you're a man.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
July 29th, 2010 - 15:28
thank you! thank you anton for this piece.
to be fair to featherstone, her quotes about christina hendricks were taken out of context but the way the media have jumped on this has just perpetuate this appalling message of
‘right ladies, we told you to be thin, impossibly thin, but now we’ve decided instead that you need to be an hourglass figure.’
and an hourglass figure is just as idealised, just as unattainable to many women as the skinny ideal.
why can’t we have role models for women who are role models not because they are a size 10-12 (coz lets not deceive ourselves, CH isn’t a big woman!) but because they are smart, funny, are scientists, peace activists, sports stars, professors, writers, world leaders. why is kate moss or christina hendricks a role model merely because of their pretty faces?
replacing one idealised body shape with another is not helping anyone. CH’s body shape isn’t a ‘healthy’ alternative if you aren’t naturally given her curves.
and thanks for pointing out that everyone is real! if i hear one more ‘she’s a real woman, real woman have curves’ bullshit headline, i won’t be responsible for my actions. i am a real woman! i don’t have amazing curves! i once read a magazine where a woman with the same cup size as me said having that cup size meant she wasn’t a real woman so was having surgery. that is how bloody damaging that real woman has curves nonsense is!
and you’re right. sorry guys, i agree and believe it is getting worse for men but it isn’t as bad as it is for women. i hope hope hope that we can turn back the tide so men don’t have to go through the same shit women go through with these media messages.
July 29th, 2010 - 15:49
Hear, hear.
In fairness to Lynne Featherstone, she has since complained that her comment about Ms Hendricks has received all the press attention at the expense of what she was trying to say about unrealistic body ideals in the media. An illustration perhaps of the media’s obsession with appearances at the expense of any interest in, or acknowledgement of, a woman’s abilities in her field of work and / or her intellectual capacity to have an opinion on something other than her favourite brand of shampoo.
As you say, it is nearly always female public figures who have to put up with this -the scrutiny Kate Winslet has been subjected to has always irritated me. I also don’t actually understand why I’m supposed to aspire to look like someone in the public eye (Featherstone would have been better off not using an actual example) -I might find their achievement inspirational and aspire to reach the same level of professional accomplishment, but I don’t look at famous women and think “My life would be complete if only I looked like her”.
July 29th, 2010 - 17:38
Amen to this.
Whilst I’m grateful to the media for giving such prominence to the question of which famous woman I should aspire to look like, I think I’ll carry on not giving a fuck whether I look like any of them.
Although perhaps I’ll give some thought to which famous man other men should aspire to look like. Since we apparently are required to choose only one. If all women should want to look like Christina Hendricks, all men should do their utmost to look like John Hamm. It’ll seem a bit Being-John-Malkovich-y when we all look the same, but it’ll be an insanely attractive sameness.
July 29th, 2010 - 17:47
Nice to see a man deal with gender and body image. I think though, that constantly drawing attention to how media represent women, contributes to the obsession we have with women’s bodies! I also think men are being a lot more pressured to fit certain body types/looks than you suggest. Mark Simpson has written on this issue extensively. http://www.marksimpson.com He suggests as well, though, that the change of men becoming more body conscious is part of wider societal changes to masculinity, which can be seen as positive.
July 29th, 2010 - 18:35
Yep. Same old bullshit wrapped in slightly different packaging. Used to be that we all had to look like a size 8 supermodel. Now, if you are not in possession of the sort of impressive proportions belonging to the likes of Christina Hendricks, you are not a ‘real’ woman.
What’s a girl to do Anton?
July 29th, 2010 - 20:59
The idea of being told by a newpaper or magazine that you should aspire to look a certain way is horrifically bad, whether it’s Hendricks or say.. someone with a drastically different figure like Paris Hilton.
And then there is the whole thing that no woman with Hendricks’ measurements walking down the street can look like that due to the lack of a professional makeup artist, stylist, hairdresser, etc. And probably ALOT more specialists that work behind the scenes to create what we see in the photo up there. I know it’s a much more simplified arguement that I’m presenting, but valid nonetheless.
July 30th, 2010 - 07:30
I was in a airport newsagents a few years ago waiting for a delayed flight and desperate to find something to pass the time reading. I ended up looking at women’s magazines (which was odd, I’m a no yet middle aged bloke). Martine McCutcheon was on the cover of two different magazines, but the picture of her was pretty much the same. They had been snapped by some photographer with a long lens while she was on a beach wearing a bikini. The first front page of the first magazine congratulated Martine on her fantastic curves and womanly hour glass figure (all the usual stuff), while the second magazine announced that her eating had got out of control, as was evident from ‘Mrs Blobby’ physic in the picture.
Fucking insane.
July 30th, 2010 - 08:19
The most attractive men and women are unconcerned with conforming to a “standard model” of physical beauty (be it fashion, body shape, hair styles etc) – and are, as such, free to explore other more interesting, and engaging, topics of conversation…
July 30th, 2010 - 09:31
Thanks for this: the way the media skewed this is bizarre, especially with one of the BBC’s interviewees arguing that it would be impossible to be Hendricks’ shape because it would take too much work. Work? Can’t we just accept that different people have different shapes that fluctuate, and that our shape isn’t determined by the “effort” we put into it?
Mostly I’m fed up that yet another high profile dialogue into what women should and shouldn’t look like has been splashed across the media. I don’t read women’s mags, I don’t watch tv a lot but I still find myself subconsciously worrying about my weight, how I look and my dress size despite my best efforts. And every moment I spent worrying about that, I could be reading a book, or engaging with something more important. Rubbish.
July 30th, 2010 - 10:29
This is just a product of the social genetic gender roles that exist in society. I’m not saying it’s good or right but it’s the way it is. Why do women buy more shoes, clothes and make up than men? They don’t have to, no one’s telling them to, and most of them want to.
Why don’t women go to the gym and build their muscles or want a ripped six pack?
Of course these are generalisations but there is an explanation to it all.
July 30th, 2010 - 13:57
“Why do women buy more shoes, clothes and make up than men? They don’t have to, no one’s telling them to”
I beg to differ. There’s a multi-billion pound industry telling us to, not to mention all this kind of stuff in the media warning us about how we’ll be judged if we don’t. Women’s magazines are generally designed so that first third / half is full of stories and photographs either judging celebrity women on their appearance, or conducting aspirational interviews with celebrity women whose success is accompanied or directly caused by their amazing looks and style. Then the second half is full of style advice and adverts for clothes and makeup.
If you don’t read women’s magazines (and I don’t) there’s still shit like this on the BBC no less, pontificating about whether or not I should be trying to look like Christina Hendricks. The pressure is there, whether you bow to it or not.
It’s about exploiting women to make money. The emphasis on female appearance isn’t the natural result of some kind of vanity gene that only women possess – it’s a social construct, and as such can be challenged and changed, not just accepted as “the way it is”.
July 30th, 2010 - 15:52
Charlie i would recommend you read the second part of natasha walter’s book ‘living dolls’ which looks at how a lot of ‘genetic gender roles’ are generally a pile of nonsense. surprisingly, women aren’t genetically predisposed to buy shoes. if they were, women in the kalahari would all be gazing longingly at jimmy choos.
we are all suscpetible to advertising messages. women are endlessly sold the message that they will be happy/empowered/beautiful/liberated/content/get the perfect man if they only just buy these shoes/clothes/make up. even if you don’t believe the hype, even if you never read the magazines, you cannot escape the message that hits you when you walk past a billboard on the street, into a shop full of magazines, that women should act, look and behave in a certain way to be successful and beautiful.
so biological determinism is not an explanation to the pressure men and women are under to look a certain way.
July 30th, 2010 - 11:27
to be honest, I think the only reason the comments got so much attention is because it gave newspapers an excuse to print pictures of Christina Hendricks.
July 30th, 2010 - 18:18
The woman I aspire to be like is a Dutch artist. I haven’t got a fucking clue what she looks like – all I know is that I’d love to have just half of her artistic talent and inspiration. That’s the kind of aspirations that should be fostered in girls from an early age.
August 2nd, 2010 - 13:40
Notable that Mad Men is set in the early 60s, sexism, racism and antisemitism is rife. And it’s been decided that women should have, as a role model, one of the more traditionally-attractive (for the early 60s) characters rather than the one woman who’s made good (or is getting there) in a male-dominated office, namely Peggy. Who would be my role model any day if I was forced to choose one from Mad Men. But not because of how she looks.
Having said that, Joan in Mad Men is gorgeous. As to whether Christina Hendricks’ figure is the one to go for, I have to wonder how much is due to supportive lingerie.