Extra! Extra! This is NOT empowering!
Everything...everything about this article pisses me off!
I have to assume that this is the latest in the proliferation of media pieces promoting "healthy body image." Unfortunately, once again they've got it all wrong.
It is a finding that will quicken the hearts of size 14 women everywhere - gentlemen prefer Miss Average.
In this first sentence, author Fiona McCrae assumes:
- Women who wear size 14 have poor self-esteem.
- Said self-esteem is intrinsically linked to one's perceived attractiveness to men.
- Women are all straight.
Durr. Some "researchers" (no mention of their qualifications) conducted a study, which as far I understand involved 100 men critiquing drawings of torsos. I question the methodology that involves sketches and a statistically insignificant portion of men. However, I wasn't there, so I can't discount it entirely.
What does piss me off, is that these (sociologists? pyschologists? behavioural scientists?) can still make headlines by comodifying women's bodies.
Why is designating size 14 as the ideal body size any better than size 4? Ultimately it's assigning disproportionate value to the supposed desirability of a woman's body. And we're still defining "attractive" within very, very narrow parameters.
It's still encouraging a division between women. Size 14 women are "real". Supermodels, and those in the tall and thin camp are not. However, the headline still characterizes modelesque women as "perfect" while the size 14 women are "homely".
It's still saying, "She who the boys find prettiest wins!" It's ignoring all the real-life evidence that women (and men) of every size are loved, desired and cherished.
It's just a stupid, insulting piece of so-called journalism. UK Daily Mail...you FAIL!
I have to assume that this is the latest in the proliferation of media pieces promoting "healthy body image." Unfortunately, once again they've got it all wrong.
It is a finding that will quicken the hearts of size 14 women everywhere - gentlemen prefer Miss Average.
In this first sentence, author Fiona McCrae assumes:
- Women who wear size 14 have poor self-esteem.
- Said self-esteem is intrinsically linked to one's perceived attractiveness to men.
- Women are all straight.
Durr. Some "researchers" (no mention of their qualifications) conducted a study, which as far I understand involved 100 men critiquing drawings of torsos. I question the methodology that involves sketches and a statistically insignificant portion of men. However, I wasn't there, so I can't discount it entirely.
What does piss me off, is that these (sociologists? pyschologists? behavioural scientists?) can still make headlines by comodifying women's bodies.
Why is designating size 14 as the ideal body size any better than size 4? Ultimately it's assigning disproportionate value to the supposed desirability of a woman's body. And we're still defining "attractive" within very, very narrow parameters.
It's still encouraging a division between women. Size 14 women are "real". Supermodels, and those in the tall and thin camp are not. However, the headline still characterizes modelesque women as "perfect" while the size 14 women are "homely".
It's still saying, "She who the boys find prettiest wins!" It's ignoring all the real-life evidence that women (and men) of every size are loved, desired and cherished.
It's just a stupid, insulting piece of so-called journalism. UK Daily Mail...you FAIL!