In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook…

Yes!  This is totally misogynist!!

“Because, OMG, skinny bitches are gross!  Who would want to fuck that?  Amirite?”

People’s bodies come in all shapes and sizes.   You don’t have to be attracted to them all, but you sure as shit don’t need to do line-ups of one type against another and then post (or repost) some body policing shame-a-thon up on a social network in order to get high fives and ‘likes’.

And if you thought this was somehow empowering, think again.   Our body shape and size is largely determined by genetics, so how is this compare and contrast line-up supposed to make anyone feel better, when all it’s really doing is saying, “If you look more like the women on the top, well then it sucks to be you, because you’re scary!”  And the overwhelming majority of us look nothing like either of those two sets of women. “Real women have curves.” No, actually, not all women do, and it doesn’t make them any less fucking real if they don’t.

Also, and why isn’t this the most obvious fucking thing ever, but all the photos featured in the bottom row are obviously from fashion shoots, while the ones on the top are candid shots of celebrities who happened to be at the beach?   No one looks in real life like they do at a photo shoot!  Even before Photoshop, they would still pose them, and stitch them into swimsuits that would be most flattering, do tall their hair and makeup, so comparing a model shot of Elizabeth Taylor to a shot of Keira Knightly just hanging out at the beach is fucking ridiculous.

If you want to encourage acceptance of women’s bodies, you should find an image that is a positive portrayal of multiple shapes, colors, sizes, without imposing a hierarchy.   Something like, I dunno, This…

Source: naturalmodelsla

Source: naturalmodelsla Borrowed from - http://healthyisclassy.tumblr.com/ Click to visit!

Also, Keira Knightly’s abs are fucking ridiculously jacked.  Holy six pack!  God damn, girl, you buff!

Just sayin’.

6 Responses to “In Case You Were Wondering, Facebook…”


  1. 1 Your Girl Friday (@whiterosered) January 22, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    “Our body shape and size is largely determined by genetics, so how is this compare and contrast line-up supposed to make anyone feel better, when all it’s really doing is saying, “If you look more like the women on the top, well then it sucks to be you, because you’re scary!” ”

    I agree that comparing women’s bodies and holding some up as “gross” and others as “desireable” is not constructive or intelligent, but I disagree that the women in the top row look the way they do because of genetics and could not change their shape if they wanted to. I think many of us have seen actresses like Keira Knightly and Kirsten Dunst whittle away at their shapes by using extreme body modification behaviours like restrictive dieting and near-constant exercise, at a level that most women don’t have access to. Heidi Montag has been extremely public about going under the knife to change the way she looks. All eight women in the graphic are equally beautiful and deserving of respect, no matter how they modify their bodies, but in the top row, the only influence genetics has had, is making their bodies malleable and extremely responsive to dieting and exercise. I am all for telling women that they can be desireable and worthy even if they don’t want to or can’t conform by dieting and moulding their physique, which is (imo) what this graphic is attempting to do. Unfortunately, it is doing that by shaming women, which is counter-productive and cancels out any good the message might have had.

    • 2 peggyluwho January 22, 2012 at 1:29 pm

      Even if Keira Knightley gave up dieting and doing whatever she’s doing to get those abs, she would still never look like Marilyn Monroe. Conversely, if you have an hourglass shape like Monroe’s, all the diet and exercise in the world are never going to make you look like Keira Knightley. That’s what I meant when I said “largely determined by genetics.” I was referring to their starting points.

  2. 3 c-word January 22, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    though i understand what you are saying, i have to agree with “your girl friday” for the most part. unfortunately, the features and traits for what is to be considered “beautiful” in a woman are constantly changing and have done so for centuries. for instance, during the renaissance period, a woman who was fair skinned/pale and voluptuous was something to be more desired. however, fast forward to the 1920’s where being flat-chested and skinny was all the craze. in the 50’s/60’s it was back to the more voluptuous figures (as depicted in the bottom row of the graph) and it has flipped back and forth since the 70’s… (however mainly staying towards the skinny side of the spectrum). granted, women don’t have much control over what genetics hands them; but IMHO, i think what this graph is trying to state is the fact that a lot of these women are so small, it looks unhealthy. in addition, a lot of these women have admitted to having eating disorders at one time or another (not to mention the insane cosmetic surgery procedures heidi underwent in one day). unfortunately, i think a lot of the media is to blame – constantly depicting the more “modelesque” figures, instead of showing a myriad of different body types in advertising, movies, tv, etc. as you have posted below. i think the biggest issue is the fact that women will literally kill themselves to be as small as possible; this is not healthy. however, if you are naturally and healthily a small size, that does not mean that you are any less sexy than marilyn monore and her curves and so on. what i believe this graph is trying to say is just the fact that our idea of body image has become so warped within a matter of years. all women are sexy, no matter what their shape and size.

  3. 5 c-word January 26, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    my apologies – though it has always been speculated, none of the 4 women pictured on top have ever publicly admitted to having an eating disorder. the closest would have been when nicole richie checked into rehab facility for not being able to put on weight in 2006 (she went from approx. 130lbs to 81lbs), but still denied the rumors of having an eating disorder. and keira knightley has stated that annorexia runs in her family, but she does not suffer from it (personally, i really just think she has a tiny frame). however, there have been many celebrities that have admitted to having an eating disorder at one point or another : http://maddieruud.hubpages.com/hub/Celebrities_with_Eating_Disorders_-_List_and_Pics

    in the meantime, have you seen this? http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466135-when-did-this-become-hotter-than-this


  1. 1 For Never Was A Story Of More Woe… « stop! talking. Trackback on January 24, 2012 at 3:05 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 66 other followers

Fa-ra-ra-ra -rah Ra-ra-ra-rah!

PeggyLu’s Twitter

January 2012
S M T W T F S
« Sep   Apr »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives


%d bloggers like this: