I want to qualify this by saying that I have not watched Mad Men and have only seen Christina Hendricks in Firefly - in which I thought she was great - but never the less; my opinion in this case is qualified by nothing other than the fact that I am a woman. Which I think is quite enough.My problem with Christina Hendricks? Absolutely nothing. As I said; I know little about her. I am aware of Mad Men mainly as a nagging feeling that it's a really good show that I should probably get around to watching sooner or later.
The world's problem with Christina Hendricks? Where to start... An article by the BBC supposedly praising Hendricks' figure as 'ideal' sparked my irritation.
Having initially praised her curves as something every woman should aspire to, and her current role on Mad Men as a fantastic celebration of a more 'normal' figure on television, the article then goes on the cite what I presume it considers an expert.
This woman not only claims that no one should aspire to look like Hendricks, as keeping a size 14 (what they allege her size to be - I really can't say) figure requires a carefully monitored diet and exercise. She also makes the most ludicrous claim I have ever heard;
"Usually in the real world, the bigger breast goes along with a bigger tummy, wider waist or protruding abdomen."
My apologies; I and many of my friends must be living in an alternate fantasy universe then. None of us diet or do a drastic amount in the way of exercise, many have a naturally larger bust and are rocking a size 12 or 14. Believe me, it's through no effort on our part - we're just busy being normal. The gods know I love my cake!
I resent not only the implication that there is such a thing as an ideal figure, but the suggestion that this new 'ideal' is still unattainable to women! I certainly don't know Christina Hendricks, but I doubt she would appreciate being used to tell women that they can't be beautiful! ALL SIZES AND SHAPES ARE BEAUTIFUL!
My main problem though? Christina Hendricks' breasts. They're big, they're fabulous; they're all anyone can talk about.Poor woman; many of the images of her that I've seen have been photoshopped - her figure is all people can seem to talk about when they write about her role on Mad Men. As I say; I haven't seen her act much but I'll go out on a limb and presume that she's more memorable than her breasts!
Maybe I'm taking it overly personally - largely because I've spent my adult life trying to get people to talk to my face and not my chest (really folks; they just can't hear you! Not a superpower of mine...). I'm hardly the first to bray that no woman should be regarded solely by her appearance, but the juxtaposition of the praise for Hendricks' representation of a strong, career minded woman in the 60's and the inability to focus on anything other than her cup size quite frankly pisses me off.
Above picture included to illustrate the fact that her body does indeed continue below her breasts - not something that 99% of pictures of her would make you aware of!
That was a strange article. It seemed to think that now that this is the "new" ideal, that all other ideals will be out. Plus, shouldn't we be eating well and exercising in general? The article seems to think that would be a hardship, not just healthy habits to maintain your best shape, whatever that may be. I am a size 8/10 with bigger breasts than she seems to have, so I would say the statements you commented on are definitely mistaken.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with lots of ideal body types? Also known as: if you are curvy but healthy, awesome, if you are skinny and healthy, awesome.
Better yet, everyone is awesome. Get over the boobs people.
Rosalind
Girls Are Geeks
It really didn't seem to know what it was trying to say. It was as though it couldn't possibly propose an 'ideal' figure that women shouldn't have to work for - that we should always be striving for something instead of just having a healthy body and being really happy with that, whatever size it is.
ReplyDeleteGet over the boobs people.
I couldn't agree more! Boobs are great; but women exist both below and, most importantly, above them!!!!
I should preface what I'm going to say with the simple agreement, that I've not seen Christina Hendricks in anything but Firefly. When I saw Christina Hendricks for the first time on said show, I was completely and totally taken aback. By more than her beauty, although completely amazing and altogether other-worldly, I was taken by the fact that she had presence. While Nathan Fillion is very entertaining to watch, Christina Hendricks very much dominated the scene with what ever it is that most actors, actresses, and people in general strive for. "It".
ReplyDeleteI saw an interview once with Christina Hendricks talking about "Firefly" and where her career was going. She was simply sexy and radiant. Not because of her figure or how amply she'd been endowed, but because of something else. Confidence. A realistic view of things. And the simple attitude that she'll do anything but change who she is to succeed.
I guess my point is that I whole-heartedly agree that Christina Hendricks, and others like her, have a significantly broader spectrum about them than their breasts.
As a guy, I cannot deny the inherent beauty of Christina Hendricks. But I feel that it comes down to so much more than that. I think she's sexy, because she is confident.
That's the key right there. It really doesn't matter if lots of cleavage and skin are being shown. It doesn't matter if the woman in question is covered in burlap from head to toe. Confidence can be read through any layer. Confidence is sexy. :)
-ACS
i must say i like her work
ReplyDelete