I was surfing just now and came across something that simply shocked me: a blog entry for The New York Times called "Now Scrutinizing: A Rounder Golden Globes."
This is from last week, but I just saw it now. Blogger Andy Post comments that Jennifer Aniston, Courtney Cox and Kate Hudson all looked like they'd put on weight at the Golden Globes.
I think Post may have thought that since his piece lacked a "value judgment" about weight gain (he spoke of 'sexier curves' and said they were 'more Marilyn than Twiggy') that this sort of speculation was less damaging.
Of course, it's this very sort of objectifying of bodies that leads women (and men, I might add) to eating disorders and other vastly unhealthy practices that stem from obsession over physique. I mean, if those women are round, I'm a balloon, and so are most humans.
This seems to me to be an example of good intentions gone awry. I can tell from his piece that he means to nuance this sort of body image discussion by not showing a preference for the unhealthy, zero-size aspirations that the tabloids seem to consider ideal. But instead, it's just another crap piece with an unhealthy focus on exterior. How about a piece about what an unheralded great actress Courtney Cox is? What's Kate Hudson like as a person?
Why is The Times involved in this sort of journalism in the first place? Why do we continually set the bar for discourse at the lowest possible level? Let's raise the bar. Significantly.
Add a comment