Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

43 Responses

  1. Blitzgal
    Blitzgal August 15, 2006 at 2:42 pm |

    And after you read the article, read the comments section. The vast majority of them either castigate Traister for “obsessing” over men’s magazines in order to find someting offensive, or note that it’s patently obvious that men do NOT like fat chicks, so what the hell is she complaining about? I particularly enjoy the comment by Sheesh, who brings up the whole hip/waist ratio evolution thing that keeps getting batted around every couple of years.

  2. Amber
    Amber August 15, 2006 at 2:46 pm |

    Oh gag me with a spoon. Yeah Catherine Zeta-Jones is a real pioneer for all us “curvy women” out there. Sheesh.

    The other day I was buying a bra at Nordstrom and saw a flyer for “Spanx” which are basically a modern day girdle, and there was a testimonial on there from Jessica Alba like, “I love Spanx, they smooth out all my lumps and bumps and makes me look really thin.”

    I busted out laughing and surprisingly had to explain myself to the cashier. Yeah Jessica, I feel bad for you and all your lumps and bumps.

    Okay and I know all that is beside the point. Way to go, Details. You’re so progressive and forward thinking talking about “fat” women in Hollywood, then you bust out with that graphic.

  3. philosophizer
    philosophizer August 15, 2006 at 2:47 pm |

    I bet if you can see all of that picture, the pig is adorable. Why it’s the representation of gross is beyond me. (OK, I know the derivation of the imagery, but still.)

    Yes, I like talking about unimportant details.

  4. ole blue
    ole blue August 15, 2006 at 2:59 pm |

    I didn’t see any names of women that could be classified as even close to over weight.

  5. Bryan
    Bryan August 15, 2006 at 4:24 pm |

    I like how in the middle of the slideshow photo gallery, they throw in a picture of Miss Piggy.

  6. frumious b
    frumious b August 15, 2006 at 4:40 pm |

    I didn’t read the Details article. All I needed was too see the high heels on the pig to realize that the root of the problem lies not in the women they profiled. The root of the problem is that the article is about women. No such article would ever be written about men even though there are fat men all over tv.

    I wish she hadn’t said “bigger is sexier.” Can’t she say “bigger is sexy”? “Sexy” implies sexy all on it’s own. “Sexier” implies better than something else. Can’t we encourage fat ladies to have good self image without disparaging skinny ladies?

    I assume you’ll be writing about this next.

  7. Chicklet
    Chicklet August 15, 2006 at 5:19 pm |

    No such article would ever be written about men even though there are fat men all over tv.

    Because schlubs like Kevin James and Jim Belushi are entitled to skinny hot babes. If a female of equivalent size is allowed on TV, she’s the sexless sidekick to the skinny hot babe star.

  8. exangelena
    exangelena August 15, 2006 at 6:05 pm |

    The linked Details article cites Mae West’s 38-24-38 proportions – which seem about as attainable as the Calista Flockhart look. Especially since 8 percent of women have hourglass figures. As for the rest of the examples, Rachel Weisz was pregnant when she won an Oscar and got a lot of press coverage and Liv Tyler actually had to lose weight for “The Lord of the Rings”, her most widely recognized role. Earlier this year Reclusive Leftist sounded off on some other “Kristin Davis fat” story.
    Furthermore, I sincerely hope that the very title “Why Fat Is Back in Hollywood” is only meant as an intriguing hook, because I doubt any of these women would even come close to being diagnosed medically overweight. Not to mention that most of them probably still have to diet and exercise to maintain their bodies and are probably not “plate lickers”.
    As for the disgusting pig graphic, now we know where assholes like Tucker Max get their ideas. Or vice versa.

  9. dryad
    dryad August 15, 2006 at 7:16 pm |

    Can we say, “sexual politics of meat”? Jesus. And I’m not even talking about the damn pig.

    One could speculate that for those obsessed with not eating, even the boyfriend’s salami goes the way of the bread basket.

    I’m glad to know that not starving oneself is acceptable based on the fear that skinny chicks might be insufficiently enamored of the cock. So it’s okay to be “fat” (read “not anorexic”) because guys think it’s hot. Gee, that is just, like, so empowering.

    And forgive me for being an English major, but the article’s concluding phrase, “the shape of things to come,” immediately pissed me off. “Things.” Not “people” or “women” or “Hollywood actresses.” The cliche is no excuse. In case there was any doubt, the article is not praising women for breaking away from harmful, unrealistic standards of beauty; it’s merely assigning a greater value to a particular commodity, and that commodity is women’s bodies.

  10. Natalia
    Natalia August 15, 2006 at 8:00 pm |

    Oh GAWD. For once, just once, I would like people to stop pushing a pre-packaged standard of beauty on my poor, exhausted little brain.

  11. Natalia Antonova
    Natalia Antonova August 15, 2006 at 8:39 pm |

    [...] Filed under: Uncategorized, America, The F-Word, Idiots on Parade Zuzu at Feministe noticed a perverse new article on Detail [...]

  12. little cabbage
    little cabbage August 16, 2006 at 2:01 am |

    I’m almost exactly Mae West’s size and measurements, and I am slim. In what bizarro universe is Mae West considered even close to “fat”?

    It seems to me that the variance is more in body shape, not size. Anyone’s hips will look big when their waist is 14 inches smaller. So, woohoo for Hollywood: they’ve figured out again that there is actually a little bit of variance in women’s bodies. Somehow I’m disinclined to throw them a big fucking party.

  13. Destructor
    Destructor August 16, 2006 at 4:23 am |

    I’m just stunned they cited Evangeline Lilly as an example of a larger woman. Every time I see her on Lost I look at her little chicken-bone arms and worry for her.

  14. Lya Kahlo
    Lya Kahlo August 16, 2006 at 7:15 am |

    For a different persepctive:

    http://www.mwillett.org/mind/bigwomen.htm

  15. exangelena
    exangelena August 16, 2006 at 9:42 am |

    little cabbage – I hope I didn’t imply that there’s anything wrong with having a 38-24-38 figure. Picking out any one particular body type, whether it’s thin or curvy or whatever, is not usually attainable for most women, because we all have unique body types. Frankly, most of the women who are supposed to be “curvy” are very busty with the bodies that are still slender, but not particularly worked out or lean. And with Mae West, it was probably her “larger-than-life” personality that makes her seem bigger than she really was.

  16. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler August 16, 2006 at 3:59 pm |

    Men don’t like fat chicks, Blitzgal. The few who do either brag about it for liberal cred or label themselves fetishists (or at least group themselves by that preference).

  17. little cabbage
    little cabbage August 16, 2006 at 4:25 pm |

    exangelena – oh, no, don’t worry! You didn’t offend me in the least. I know you weren’t implying that there’s anything wrong with having my figure – there’s nothing wrong with anyone having any figure, as long as they’re happy with themselves. I used to be somewhat bigger, and I was fine with it – my fairly recent weight loss is a byproduct of my desire to get into shape for ski season, not a goal in itself.

    It just seems that no matter what kind of figure we have, we women get crap about it from someone. My experience has been somewhat similar to Amanda’s at Pandagon: I’ve been called too fat and too skinny, each by more than one person, while at the exact same weight. What a screwed up society we live in where that’s par for the course.

  18. Thomas
    Thomas August 16, 2006 at 5:00 pm |

    The few who do either brag about it for liberal cred or label themselves fetishists (or at least group themselves by that preference).

    Fuck yourself. I do none of those three things. I’ve had lovers from less than 100lbs to about 300; I have neither a preference for or against fat women; I am not a fetishist, and I don’t identify with any group defined by attraction to larger women’s bodies. File that crap under “bullshit assumptions and stupid theories that validate my prejudices,” along with Evo Psych and the Bell Curve.

  19. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler August 16, 2006 at 6:20 pm |

    zuzu:

    I don’t care if you don’t like fat chicks.

    See? If I don’t come right out and say that my tastes are different from mainstream standards, I’m accused of being narrow-minded. Merely because I haven’t explicitly said “I don’t really consider a woman’s body her most important attribute” (which sounds really fucking pretentious, doesn’t it?) it’s assumed that not only do I see a woman’s weight first, but I’m an asshole about it.

    The most recent post on Pandagon has a plethora of men stating their largely unsolicited opinions of the bodies of women they see on the street, the women in the photos, their colleagues, and the mens own partners. Why did they give these usolicited opinions? Does it make the point they were ostensibly trying to make? Some of them don’t even overtly attempt to make a point. I’m sorry I don’t feel women exist for the benefit of men. I’m sorry I think women are entitled not to have their bodies judged at all.

    I don’t think having a preferred range that’s different from the range in the magazines is a bad thing. But I also don’t think it’s a good thing. I don’t think it puts a person on a higher plane or anything. I don’t feel compelled to say what my preferred range is, or what my preferences in anything are, because it doesn’t matter, because no one’s obliged to cater to my preferences or apologize for not, and because I don’t think my status as a liberal is tied to how ugly a scout from Maxim would think my girlfriend is.

    And I think if someone does have a preferred range that’s different from the range in the magazines, that’s not weird, or freaky, or pathetic, or even, really, worth mentioning except in immediately relevant contexts. I am genuinely puzzled by every man’s need to say “my partner’s even bigger than that!” when, really, no one asked.

    Thomas:

    “The few who do either brag about it for liberal cred or label themselves fetishists (or at least group themselves by that preference).”

    Fuck yourself. I do none of those three things. I’ve had lovers from less than 100lbs to about 300

    Wow, that was fast. Why are you telling me this, then?

    And I don’t know what the fuck everyone else’s problem is. I don’t see Natalia or exangelena for making substantially the same point.

  20. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler August 16, 2006 at 6:30 pm |

    Someone explain to me the difference between “no fat chicks” and “fat chicks only.” There clearly is one, and I’m missing it.

  21. piny
    piny August 16, 2006 at 6:40 pm |

    …Have you never read one of these discussions before, or what? You said that desire for larger women–not openly acknowledged desire, mind, or preference for them above any other body type–was very rare, and that men who do feel that way are all fetishists. So did the Salon article: it created a spectrum of female body types that ranged from “really skinny” to “slightly less skinny.” The natural reaction is defensiveness; the natural reaction is refuting that inaccuracy with information that disproves it.

    You said that men who like large women–of which Thomas is one–brag about their preference, label themselves fetishists, or self-identify as fat-lovers. In that context, Thomas saying, “Well, I’m one of those men, and I don’t do that,” doesn’t qualify as bragging about his preference. If someone came onto a thread about transsexuals and said, “All people who sleep with transsexuals either brag about it for liberal cred or label themselves fetishists (or at least group themselves by that preference),” I wouldn’t see anything transphobic or self-aggrandizing about a commenter who subsequently said, “Excuse me? I sleep with transpeople and I don’t describe myself as a fetishist or refer to myself as transsensual.”

    Natalia and exangelena might have said things similar to what you meant to say, but their comments weren’t remotely similar to yours.

  22. evil_fizz
    evil_fizz August 16, 2006 at 7:14 pm |

    Natalia’s comment:

    Oh GAWD. For once, just once, I would like people to stop pushing a pre-packaged standard of beauty on my poor, exhausted little brain.

    Your’s:

    Men don’t like fat chicks, Blitzgal. The few who do either brag about it for liberal cred or label themselves fetishists (or at least group themselves by that preference).

    There is no comparison whatsoever.

  23. exangelena
    exangelena August 16, 2006 at 9:01 pm |

    What the hell is “fat” anyway? As little cabbage said at #20, she’s been called too fat and too skinny, without gaining or dropping extreme amounts of weight. The same thing has happened to me and no doubt countless other people. Karen Elson, a runway model, has been told she’s too fat, although she’s much, much thinner than the average British woman and probably has half the BMI of a medically obese person.

  24. Esme
    Esme August 16, 2006 at 10:38 pm |

    She was also the essence of awesome.

  25. Feministe » What Attracts You?
    Feministe » What Attracts You? August 16, 2006 at 10:58 pm |

    [...] think it’s a damn interesting question, particularly given some of the discussion in this post. So, let us know your thoughts.

    [...]

  26. little light
    little light August 17, 2006 at 7:39 am |

    Well, thanks for clearing that up for us, Hersh.

    More for us dykes to enjoy.

  27. Jill
    Jill August 17, 2006 at 8:00 am | *

    What the hell is “fat” anyway? As little cabbage said at #20, she’s been called too fat and too skinny, without gaining or dropping extreme amounts of weight.

    I’ve been called a “fat pig” and a “skeletor” based on the same set of online photos. And I’m pretty much in the middle — neither notably fat nor notably skinny. It really is in the eye of the beholder.

  28. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler August 17, 2006 at 10:08 am |

    I don’t endorse using the tem “fetishist” or “fat admirer” to describe men who have one arbitrary standard as opposed to another one. I think it would be great if men liked fat chicks, and better still if men didn’t consider these arbitrary preferences important.

    If a magazine had a bunch of pictures of strawberry-haired celebrities and said “it’s okay to be a redhead! You don’t have to be blond!” and someone blogged about that, and in the comments a bunch of guys said “my wife/girlfriend has redder hair than that!” and another bunch said “all those women are blond!” I’d think all those commenters were missing the point too.

    you think any woman’s body that doesn’t conform to the norm is so repulsive that no man possibly finds that attractive.

    I think we as a society label men who do, if not mock them outright. I don’t approve of this.

    You keep bringing up my alleged preferences, which I haven’t said anything about because they’re, well, mine, and I don’t have the final say in which women are attractive and which aren’t other than to me. If I did, I assure you men’s magazines would look different. I can’t tell men to stop preferring thin, sometimes preternaturally thin women or to stop having unrealistic ideas about what women should look like.

    I don’t doubt the sincerity of men who say “my girlfriend is bigger than Kristin Davis” — I’m sure she is. I don’t know how it’s relevant to the issue at hand*, and so I can only conclude he’s trying to impress me with how indifferent to a woman’s size he is. If so, it doesn’t work.

    *That being that we as a society need to stop equating “beautiful” with “thin” or, really, any other size.

  29. Amber
    Amber August 17, 2006 at 11:24 am |

    And in another stunning development, a model with a 24-inch waist is now PLUS SIZE! Good times.

  30. shannon
    shannon August 17, 2006 at 11:39 am |

    NOOO! And I’d like to bitch about hydrocut commericals. At 110 I looked like the before bikini model. That’s just wrong! Why? Because I wasn’t really fat! (I lost some weight but I wasn’t fat at my slightly larger size) But like I felt insecure seeing that, so it was like omg, wtf. Ok, this post doesn’t make any sense, but try to pretend it does.

  31. Hershele Ostropoler
    Hershele Ostropoler August 17, 2006 at 11:41 am |

    How is it that we live so close and read so many of the same blogs have such wildly divergent observations of the people around us? You really don’t see the notion of “fat fetishism” anywhere but in my comments? you really don’t see men disdaining women larger than a size 6 and the men who find them attractive?

    You really don’t see men (other than, ostensibly, me) taking it upon themselves to determine which women are the right weight and which are not?

  32. Katie
    Katie August 17, 2006 at 11:50 am |

    Amber, I saw that last night, and I was like, “WTF?”

    My husband asked what “zaftig” meant, and I told him, and he was like, “WTF?” Fucking lame. Just lame.

  33. piny
    piny August 17, 2006 at 11:51 am |

    I don’t endorse using the tem “fetishist” or “fat admirer” to describe men who have one arbitrary standard as opposed to another one. I think it would be great if men liked fat chicks, and better still if men didn’t consider these arbitrary preferences important.

    You (a) need to start using more careful language to distinguish between fetishization, specific preference, and inclusive preference and (b) need to stop talking about these things as though they’re not controversial.

    How is it that we live so close and read so many of the same blogs have such wildly divergent observations of the people around us? You really don’t see the notion of “fat fetishism” anywhere but in my comments? you really don’t see men disdaining women larger than a size 6 and the men who find them attractive?

    You really don’t see men (other than, ostensibly, me) taking it upon themselves to determine which women are the right weight and which are not?

    Absolutely. But that’s not what you said.

  34. Chris Clarke
    Chris Clarke August 17, 2006 at 12:09 pm |

    “Hershele” pushed pretty much the same line on Pandagon a few months back, except with the “older than 22 equals ugly” notion tacked on.

    I see he hasn’t gotten any less stupid.

  35. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost August 17, 2006 at 1:03 pm |

    If a magazine had a bunch of pictures of strawberry-haired celebrities and said “it’s okay to be a redhead! You don’t have to be blond!” and someone blogged about that, and in the comments a bunch of guys said “my wife/girlfriend has redder hair than that!” and another bunch said “all those women are blond!” I’d think all those commenters were missing the point too.

    Wait, where the fuck has anyone done that? I haven’t seen anyone on here falling over themselves for a bit of “my girlfriend’s ass is bigger than that, so there” one upmanship. I have seen guys on here state flatly that this article doesn’t square with their desire, and the range of size and shapes of women they find attractive. As zuzu’s explained, that’s useful and valuable.

    I honestly don’t know what you’re on about. Your defensive ramblings tend to contradict your first comments, which you still haven’t explained.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.