The 2009 Article that has Irritated Me The Most
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1108830/End-hourglass-Career-women-usher-straighter-female-form.html
Shall we count the annoying things together?
1.) The idea that Hollywood dictates or represents what is attractive.
2.) That all men are attracted to to the same body type.
3.) That Hollywood only represents one type of body type (i.e. Marilyn Monroe vs. Kathleen Hepburn; Beyonce vs. Keira Knightly).
4.) The use of "science" to support faulty claims. Not only is the "medical study" mentioned poorly described, but it is also used to support a troublesome position. It is poorly described because the author is trying to conflate different things. The author's logic is faulty throughout. The finding that "Medical studies have previously shown that a curvy waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 - where the waist circumference is 70 per cent of the hip circumference or lower - is associated with higher fertility and lower rates of chronic disease," does not have any connection to what actresses are currently sex symbols nor to what men are attracted to. If this is her claim, she needs to lay it out as such. I suspect that the author has just gathered a bunch of sources and is trying to make a cohesive argument. She fails. She lays out some interesting things to consider, but ultimately the position she takes on this information is upsetting.
5.) What do I mean is upsetting? When the author writes, "And career women may be unwittingly responsible." I see. It isn't economic or societal shifts, but those poor individual stressed out women with extra tummy fat who are responsible for... what? Oh! For the false assertion that some monolithic notion of "what is attractive" has fundamentally shifted (see points 1-3).
Shall we count the annoying things together?
1.) The idea that Hollywood dictates or represents what is attractive.
2.) That all men are attracted to to the same body type.
3.) That Hollywood only represents one type of body type (i.e. Marilyn Monroe vs. Kathleen Hepburn; Beyonce vs. Keira Knightly).
4.) The use of "science" to support faulty claims. Not only is the "medical study" mentioned poorly described, but it is also used to support a troublesome position. It is poorly described because the author is trying to conflate different things. The author's logic is faulty throughout. The finding that "Medical studies have previously shown that a curvy waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 - where the waist circumference is 70 per cent of the hip circumference or lower - is associated with higher fertility and lower rates of chronic disease," does not have any connection to what actresses are currently sex symbols nor to what men are attracted to. If this is her claim, she needs to lay it out as such. I suspect that the author has just gathered a bunch of sources and is trying to make a cohesive argument. She fails. She lays out some interesting things to consider, but ultimately the position she takes on this information is upsetting.
5.) What do I mean is upsetting? When the author writes, "And career women may be unwittingly responsible." I see. It isn't economic or societal shifts, but those poor individual stressed out women with extra tummy fat who are responsible for... what? Oh! For the false assertion that some monolithic notion of "what is attractive" has fundamentally shifted (see points 1-3).