All right. I'm just going to come out and say it, though it's neither timely nor particularly deep or unexpected: it really bothers me that Britney Spears is being so universally criticized for having looked "fat" at the Video Music Awards. Her lackluster performance is, of course, another issue, and one on which I don't particularly feel inclined to comment, except to say that I feel sorry for her, but the criticisms of her body size are so unpleasant and off-base that they bother me tremendously.
I have yet to see any picture in which Spears looks at all what I -- or anyone I know in real life -- would characterize as "fat," "overweight," or "pudgy." She does not, of course, look exactly like she looked two or three years ago -- nor does she look like Kylie Minogue or some other famously skinny singer -- but she also does not look fat. Her breasts are noticeably large, her ribs are not individually visible, and the front of her body is slightly convex from below the breasts to the (very slender) waist (though in a uniform, toned-looking way). That's "fat," apparently.
She also looks as if she has eaten in the past day or two days. I mean that literally, not as hyperbole. One of the most disturbing statements I've seen came from a CNN article in which a woman interviewed on the street says "I mean, most women I know, if they knew they were going to wear an outfit like that, they wouldn't eat for two days beforehand!"
The woman presents this as everyday reasoning, and indeed, it is -- countless girls and women routinely starve themselves (or "fast," to put religious terminology on it) before big events. When the stomach is entirely without food it does collapse, which is about the only time most women achieve the actually concave stomach so favored in our images of femininity. (Some people, of course, actually look like this even when they have eaten, but they are not in the majority -- and certainly not in the majority among people who are as naturally "curvy" as Britney Spears is.)
But is that right? I certainly don't think it is! The implication of CNN's woman on the street, as well as a number of other people, is that Britney Spears, because she chooses to present herself as sexy, and because she is performing, ought to be held to such a rigid standard that it actually prevents the consumption of food. Moreover, the logic goes, anyone who wants to look sexy or perform well in front of others ought to have to "work" really hard by denying herself sustenance and going through extraordinary exercise routines.
But of course that isn't true! Britney Spears hardly looks unsexy -- well, except for the possibly-stoned demeanor. In fact, she looks pretty much like she's always looked: very feminine, very American, long-legged, blonde-haired, big-breasted, small-waisted, and accessible in a slutty hometown girl kind of way. It really bothers me that we take such criticisms more or less absolutely in stride. It bothers me that the criticism of celebrities gives free reign to unreasonably and unhealthily strict body expectations that we may keep slightly more under wraps, at least verbally, in everyday life, but which still affect us. I do think -- even though it maybe makes me sound didactic, that it sets a bad example for young people to see a very well-formed, toned, and slender woman like Britney called "fat" because you can't see her ribs.
So there. Maybe it's obvious, but I have to say it. I think this is a real example of skewed body-typing, and I don't like it one bit.
I have yet to see any picture in which Spears looks at all what I -- or anyone I know in real life -- would characterize as "fat," "overweight," or "pudgy." She does not, of course, look exactly like she looked two or three years ago -- nor does she look like Kylie Minogue or some other famously skinny singer -- but she also does not look fat. Her breasts are noticeably large, her ribs are not individually visible, and the front of her body is slightly convex from below the breasts to the (very slender) waist (though in a uniform, toned-looking way). That's "fat," apparently.
She also looks as if she has eaten in the past day or two days. I mean that literally, not as hyperbole. One of the most disturbing statements I've seen came from a CNN article in which a woman interviewed on the street says "I mean, most women I know, if they knew they were going to wear an outfit like that, they wouldn't eat for two days beforehand!"
The woman presents this as everyday reasoning, and indeed, it is -- countless girls and women routinely starve themselves (or "fast," to put religious terminology on it) before big events. When the stomach is entirely without food it does collapse, which is about the only time most women achieve the actually concave stomach so favored in our images of femininity. (Some people, of course, actually look like this even when they have eaten, but they are not in the majority -- and certainly not in the majority among people who are as naturally "curvy" as Britney Spears is.)
But is that right? I certainly don't think it is! The implication of CNN's woman on the street, as well as a number of other people, is that Britney Spears, because she chooses to present herself as sexy, and because she is performing, ought to be held to such a rigid standard that it actually prevents the consumption of food. Moreover, the logic goes, anyone who wants to look sexy or perform well in front of others ought to have to "work" really hard by denying herself sustenance and going through extraordinary exercise routines.
But of course that isn't true! Britney Spears hardly looks unsexy -- well, except for the possibly-stoned demeanor. In fact, she looks pretty much like she's always looked: very feminine, very American, long-legged, blonde-haired, big-breasted, small-waisted, and accessible in a slutty hometown girl kind of way. It really bothers me that we take such criticisms more or less absolutely in stride. It bothers me that the criticism of celebrities gives free reign to unreasonably and unhealthily strict body expectations that we may keep slightly more under wraps, at least verbally, in everyday life, but which still affect us. I do think -- even though it maybe makes me sound didactic, that it sets a bad example for young people to see a very well-formed, toned, and slender woman like Britney called "fat" because you can't see her ribs.
So there. Maybe it's obvious, but I have to say it. I think this is a real example of skewed body-typing, and I don't like it one bit.
Thank you! I've been feeling the same way. I mean, I could work out and give up eating and still never be that thin and toned. I thought she looked fabulous (no comment on the performance, just the body) for a normal woman, let alone one with two kids. I mean, sure, criticize the performance - from what I hear, it was a mess, but not the body.
Gah. No wonder suicide rates for teenage girls are the highest they've ever been...
I agree...I was horrified by this whole "Britney is fat" thing. And what really confuses me is that Americans, as a group, are overweight, obese actually, and yet we can call a perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy and slim body (I think she looked exactly that, healthy and slim) FAT. What the hell? It would be one thing if that was coming from these Europeans (who are skinny because they chain smoke and don't eat...as far as I can tell) because Europeans are VERY VERY thin. But coming from America? Ridiculous. Anyway, I was also horrified by the America's Top Model thing. I might have this information wrong but I think the "plus sized" model in the bunch is a size EIGHT. I think the majority of people have had a lobotomy.
By the way, glad you're back!
Whisper