Another Reason to Admire Scandinavians

I'm currently obsessed with Peggy Orenstein's blog. She's a journalist, writer, and speaker on young girls, self-esteem, and girlie culture. I'm currently reading her book, Cinderella Ate My Daughter (More on that later). She posted this link on a Swedish clothing line that promotes unisex clothing. Another reason to love Scandinavia!

Some Concerns for Randy, Star of "Say Yes to the Dress: Big Bliss"

While watching a re-run of the royal wedding, I saw previews for "Say Yes to the Dress: Big Bliss" and I think there needs to be some discussion about the contradictions of even having a show like this exist on our televisions. This interview with Randy Fenoli on "Why Plus-Size Brides Deserve Extra Love" brings up many of the issues I raised in my last post.


Here are a few highlights:


-Randy says that the point of spotlighting plus-size women is because they have received such poor treatment from other bridal stores. My problem is that by putting them on the television screen in a separate show aren't you just further "othering" them?


-He then goes on to declare that his "plus-size brides" are comfortable in their own skin, yet they should avoid certain patterns or dresses that are unattractive for their figures. A bit of a contradiction? I was watching the regular show "Say Yes to the Dress" a few weeks ago, and a "plus-size" bride wanted to wear a mermaid-style gown. Randy came in and told her that it was unflattering over and over again, yet the bride was set on that design.


Another important issue this article raises is that dresses at bridal stores do not come in sizes above a 6 or 8. The average size for a woman is a size 14. When the average woman walks into a bridal store, she won't find a dress in her size. Yet, women can't be "average-looking" can they? I think the fact that these stores won't carry sizes above an 8 is another way that women's bodies are controlled and made to feel uncomfortable. Is it telling women that they need to be a size 8 to be a happy bride in the gown of her choice? I think the bridal industry can change this by offering more and better choices for all brides.

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.stylelist.com/media/2009/10/say-yes-to-dress-240sc103009.jpg)

How Should We Talk about Bodies?

I've been pondering this question for the past few weeks: How Should We Talk about Bodies? I think the language that we use to talk about bodies directly ties with the way we feel about ourselves. There are so many labels available like fat, skinny, plus size, thin, fleshy, voluptuous, beautiful, healthy and the list goes on. I get frustrated with these labels because I question who defines what these labels mean. What is "fat" and what is "beautiful?" Also, why does "beauty" have to be an ideal? There have been many campaigns saying "Big is beautiful" and as Mika sings "Big Girl You are Beautiful." My problem with those statements is why do we need to categorize our bodies as "beautiful"? Doesn't that just perpetuate this idea that beauty is what is most important about ourselves?


I was prompted to discuss this topic on my blog after reading an article about Elizabeth Taylor's Bodaciousness. This article describes Taylor as full-figured, untoned, and uninhibited and discusses the shift in Hollywood to thin, wispy actresses.

A few points of interest for me are:


-Elizabeth Taylor is a cultural icon, and I think it may be more acceptable for her to have some flesh than the "average" woman. Are there exceptions for certain actresses? The tension I am trying to get at here is that I think it is acceptable and considered "beautiful" for some women to be "full-figured" while other women would be called "fat." I think it goes back to my discussion of how labels are defined and controlled.


-Another dilemma this article raises is that the "bodacious" body can be "sinful" and sexual while the thin body is pure. This is a problematic association. Why are some bodies allowed to have desires and others are not?


This article on Christina Hendricks provides another example of the problematic language used to describe some bodies. It begins by applauding Hendricks for her curves in a hostile atmosphere like Hollywood. It continues to say that she is not "big", and then Amy Larocca writes, "It is also not to suggest that her figure is attainable to the average duck. She looks the way movie stars used to look." So, even if Hendricks is a "bigger" woman, her beauty is still unattainable to the "average" woman? Can you see and feel my frustration in the ways women's bodies are spoken about?