I agree. Black women in the media are expected to adhere to the white standard of beauty - rail thin with european features and while I'm a (slightly) healthier size is finally starting to enter mainstream media, I still think that it is nothing of an accomplishment that the new strong voluptous black woman is woman who's a size 6, but is still shaped like a white woman, and who feature wise still looks like a white woman.

Another thing that drives me crazy - notice the lack of dark-complected black women. Wesley Snipes, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Cheadle, Blair Underwood, and the incredible handsome and georgous Omar Epps and Mekhi Pfeifer. All black men with dark complextions, with features not traditionall found on Caucasions.

How many famous black women, or even just black women on TV or in commecials (all of which is lacking), do you find like that? Halle Berry, Biance, Thandi Newton, even Angela Basset?

Now this isn't to say that dark black women are any more "black", it always seems to me black women still have to conform to standards of Caucasion features that black men do not (at least in America).

I do agree with the fact that Beyonce and Trya are very small, but in regards to Beyonce: she had to take off 25 pounds for her movie DreamGirls, and in a recent interview for InStyle, she said that 'it wasn't her body and she didn't like it, and that she's planning to pu the weight back on.' She was a curvy woman twenty pounds ago, but I would never call her "big".

I find this dichotomy about what is beautiful for white women and women of colour (I'm thinking here of black women and Latina women in particular - J.Lo would be a good example of the latter in terms of what I'm describing) kind of baffling. I hadn't thought of it in terms of "white women as fragile flowers" before, but I think this might be pretty accurate. This might sound like a strange example, but (despite being white) I have a rather muscular and curvy shape that I haven't always been that comfortable with, and (shockingly) my friends and mother have often said things like "what a shame - black girls would love to have a body like yours". Which to me is so wrong on so many levels, but I think they were articulating the stereotyping this article addresses. I also think that Beyonce used to be a bit bigger - I recall something about her going on some kind of drastic diet recently and she's all-of-a-sudden been getting more attention. As if it's not enough that standards of beauty are unattainable, now if you don't fit in with your own race's stereotypes you're shot in the foot too. Sorry if this sounds rambling, it just brought to light something I've internalized so much personally and I'm interested to explore it further...

I think "full figured" is a euphemism for "hey, her boobs are real!"

I think it is more acceptable for a black woman to have curves and still be considered sexy instead of overweight.

I think it is harder to hide how emaciated these other models are when they are wearing only bikinis. As usual, I was disturbed by the ribs, hipbones, and collar bones on display. I am surprised they get away with it, but I am surprised by a lot of things the "fashion" industry gets away with.

I completely agree, especially with that last paragraph.

The other thing that struck me when I watched the video to "Irreplaceable," which I did like, was that Black hair is still sidelined. Think about how much of that video is Beyonce tossing her full, luxurious, straight locks of hair around.

I'm not sure, though, about Louise Jefferson et al. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that such figures were in some ways descended from the "mammy" stereotype, which "allowed" older black women to be fat, stupid, nonsexual, and nonthreatening. It's been a while since I saw The Jeffersons, but I don't think that Louise was supposed to be a sexpot.

Just a thought about Louise Jefferson and Florida Evans - perhaps it was okay for them to be outside of the mainstream "acceptable" body because they were older women? Not "old," mind you, but not as young as Beyonce or Tyra. I think mainstream American tv accepts un-mainstream bodies on women when they're safely cast into a mother or grandmother role. Look at Doris Roberts from Everybody Loves Raymond or Roseanne. It's as if our culture is saying "Oh, she's a grandmother/mother - she doesn't have to be hot. But check out that daughter! [a size 0]"

Maybe you're forgetting about Eddie Murphy or Martin Lawrence in drag!

And you are misremembering, EG: Louise and George / Florida and James were very affectionate couples. As for not being a sexpot, well... neither was Jean Stapleton or (shudder) Bea Arthur.

Well, yes, but there's affectionate couples, and then there's "supposed to be sexually attractive to the viewer." I think we've seen a decline in both white and black women on TV who do not fall into the latter category.

What are you talking about, norbizness?

Bea is one fine lady!
What can I say, I like the older ladies.
^^

“it always seems to me black women still have to conform to standards of Caucasion features that black men do not (at least in America).� That’s exactly true, not just about skin tone but also about hair. Black men can have curly hair but black women can’t.

The women who are presented as sexual beings in the MSM are still fairly thin. The exceptions are on the fringe, and in that sense, I'm not sure that really full-figures women of color are more likely to be presented as sexually attractive than white women. The one that comes to mind is Cynthia Ettinger, from the cancelled and lightly watched but great HBO series Carnivale.

I wonder if there's room for black women not to be skinny if they're in music rather than in acting--I'm thinking of Missy Elliot, whom I love, and of Queen Latifah. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any comparably popular large white women who are stars, but I'm notoriously out of touch, musically. Is part of that that Elliot and Queen Latifah took on openly adversarial stances to beauty standards? Or are they musical "tokens" that serve to highlight the sex-kitten performers? One of the things that strike me about both of them is that in their music, they both seem to express complete confidence that they are desirable and desiring.

I think the media likes to highlight the "full figured" women to make it look like they're not the bad guys when it comes to eating disorders and promoting a size 0 life style. Like "Look, we ran Jennifer Hudson on the cover! Clearly we're not to blame for your daughter's plumeting self esteem. Ignore the models in the ads." Not to say these women are any less beautiful, but I don't see why we have to call special attention to the fact that big women can be as beautiful (or more so) than smaller women.

The tv show I've seen a black woman with a larger build and African features recently is Grey's Anatomy. Dr.Bailey is... well the word that comes immediately to mind is "stout" because of her height. Chandra Wilson is beautiful though, as is Sara Ramirez who also falls under the "full figured" category and who plays Dr.Torres. It's nice to see them balancing out the living twig which is Ellen Pompeo, who I find to be one of the least attractive women on that show.

I know this isn't the point, and I may get hanged here, BUT: isn't it also important to keep in mind that there is MASSIVE obecity epidemic in this country? I'm not advicating anorexia, or modeling as a sign of good health. But neither is Missy Elliot (even after her gastric by-pass, something else that is really dangerous and used way too often as a quick-fix for women). I'm not trying to piss anyone off, but sometimes, slimmer IS healthier. Lady Beyonce doesn't appear emaciated on the cover of the sports mag. She looks healthy. And a bit eager to please (which disturbs me as well).

For the same reason, Genny, I love S. Epatha Merkson on Law and Order, who gets to throw her figurative weight around as well as being a reasonable real weight, but she's a marginal character compared to the unnaturally twig-like, very young, and remarkably unprofessionally dressed women McCoy seems to continually be assigned as assistants.

Suissesse, that's actually not important to keep at mind with regard to the subject at hand. We're all aware of the obesity epidemic, and yes, it's just as unhealthy to be overweight as it is to be under, but are all of the people bemoaning the thickening of American thighs really all that concerned about our health? Or are they concerned that we don't fit an idealized image?

"OMG obesity!!!" is the usual response to posts concerning weight and women's body image, and it just has no relevance. Body image isn't "I shouldn't weigh this much because it puts me at risk for diabetes," body image is "I'm a fat heifer because some guy at school called me a lardass." And the guy calling her a lardass wasn't doing it because he was worried about her risk for heart disease.

Chandra Wilson briefly addressed this issue in her SAG awards speech, when she won for Grey's Anatomy:

"And last but not least, just to be able to take this thing home to my girls, in particular, and hold it in front of them and say, 'Look, with this skin and this nose, and this height, and these arms,' you know, 'I’m here!' Whoo!"

Well, yes, but there's affectionate couples, and then there's "supposed to be sexually attractive to the viewer." I think we've seen a decline in both white and black women on TV who do not fall into the latter category.

Agreed. My favorite sitcom-character of old (I'm young, but thank god for Nick at Nite!) is Carla from Cheers, beacuse she is just so awesomely mean and makes no apologies. I don't think we see her type much anymore.

I don't think Beyonce looks worrisomely skinny now, but I think she was fine 20 pounds ago too, and I have to say I hope she's serious about gaining the weight back. Agreed though that I hate when people are all like "curvy is in!!!" and then show off someone who is still skinnier than 99% of women (Scarlett Johannson comes to mind). Though, I usually think of myself as curvy and I am pretty skinny (I have a big butt for my size). Hmm maybe I need to rethink some things.

Thank you Lyra27 for making the distinction between the "obesity epidemic" and using body size as an acceptable way to discriminate. The dehumanizing tone of so much weight related discussions online is exhausting.

Okay, having looked at the Beyonce pics... yeah, since when did "your ribs aren't showing" equal "full figured"? Seriously. I'm not saying that a size 4 woman can't be curvy -- it depends on height and body shape -- but full figured? Probably not.

I have trouble during these discussions, because on one hand, it's great to see someone "mainstream" saying "stop holding up your unfair beauty standards to us", but then, as a size 18 woman, I realize that the person saying that is a size 6 at most, and it just seems... demoralizing. If Tyra banks is fat, what does that make me, a woman of perhaps twice her girth? I know it's not about me personally, it's about the fact that society has a collective tiny china doll in mind for all of us to emulate, but for those of us on the heavier end of the spectrum -- I've starved myself into a size 12, so I don't think a size 10 or below is anywhere in the cards for my future -- it gets difficult to talk about this, because you get the concern trolls accusing you of driving up everyone else's health cost because you're a fatty fat mcfatty fat pig who can't stop eating, and on the other, you've got these size 6 women yelling "kiss my fat ass", but... their asses aren't fat.

I don't have a point. Just rambling.

A few blunt observations:

1) Beyonce is not "full figured" in the sense that FF is a euphemism for overweight. She is "thick" and that's no better a box to be in, considering it indicates pressure for black girls feel to have cartoonish figures with proportions of 38-22-50. My point is that comparing the above pressure/appearance to "full figuredness" and reaching some sort of conclusion about FF being more acceptable among black women is bogus. Black patriarchy has NEVER lauded big 'ole stomachs. And that's not something that's suddenly changing. So let's get that straight.

2) No matter how Beyonce looks, or any model/singer/actress, there is a cult of women who will hate her, without fail, every single time. This is troubling to me.

3) Also, if Beyonce was pitch black, said women would STILL hate on her. Again, more evidence of a collective thinking pattern that needs some revision.

4) Feminism is about empowerment. When will we begin being empowered enough to start making better decisions about our health?

5) To the previous commentor, yes Weezy Jefferson and Flo from Good Times were big 'ole girls. But there was definitely not more of an acceptance at the time: Please direct your eyes to the flyest of the fly Coke bottle Thelma and Wilona, on the same show.

6) We can't end oppression WITH oppression. I'm troubled that bashing thin women (some of whom are GASP naturally thin) has become the in thing to do. ESPECIALLY when it involves promoting these stereotypes that all black women are walking around large and in charge. Not all black women look that way. And it's no more appropriate to suggest all black women are naturally thin than are naturally "curvy." That same sort of thinking (perpetuated inthe black community for a looooong time) is why, at age 15, I was ready to take body builder-strength weight gainers because "black women have curves."

A stereotype is a stereotype, and it's NOT empowering.

BTW: I'd also like to see the end of the whole "real women have curves" notion: I'm 5 ft tall and I weigh 112 lbs. Ain't I a (real)woman????

Samhita, I agree totally with every word you wrote!

Here's a terrific example of how BS-y this idea of "Beyonce=small" is: the actress America Ferrara, of Ugly Betty and Real Women Have Curves fame, is only a size 6!!! Here's the confirmation of this: http://www.styledash.com/2007/02/05/just-how-curvy-is-america-ferrara/

If this is the maximum acceptable size for a media-approved "attractive" American women -- well, all I can say is that we are screwed. Completely and utterly screwed.

While I'm here, let me also tackle the mention of "black women with Eurocentric features" being the only women accepted on magazine covers and the like.

Why is it, exactly, that if a black woman isn't black as coal, with a soul mama afro and a nose as wide as a truck, she has "European features"?

I can't help but feel, while folks seem to paternalistically think they are chiding "the media" for abusing black women, that this thinking is actually implying that if a black woman is attractive, the quality makes her European looking? So she's not attractive because she's European looking - she's European looking because she's attractive.

I hope it's not convoluted, but this is really something that's recently begun crawling under my skin. Are black women just supposed to look like Wesley Snipes?

"BTW: I'd also like to see the end of the whole "real women have curves" notion: I'm 5 ft tall and I weigh 112 lbs. Ain't I a (real)woman????"

THANK YOU, Aquafemme!

As a black woman who doesn't fit ANY of the prescribe notions of what black women should look like/have: thick thighs, round ass, etc. NOR do I have the features that white women are praised for: big breasts, straight hair (unless I straighten it, which still doesn't look "white") I find the "real women have curves" argument to leave me out along with the "real women have big breasts/etc" argument.

I'm neither stick thin nor "curvy" so where does that leave me in what's a "real" woman? I understand that women feel the need to fight the media system that they feel is putting them down but when you start touting what is and is not a real woman you're becoming no better than they are.

Ah the irony: I guess the ladies of Feministing failed to realize the lithe, curvey, barbie like figure that graces not one, but both sides of Feministing.com. Have you thought about putting up an androgenous fat chick. Then again, maybe we should just ask the lesbians which they'd rather fuck. Face it: beauty is objective. Only the ugly don't think so.

America Ferrara, good example. Not black, but it does seem that as she has gotten progressively thinner, she has also gotten progressively more successful. Coincidence?, or is it the same old Hollywood-ization of a young actress who is gorgeous just the way she is (was)? If you watch her in "Real Women Have Curves" or even "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants", she was a good deal heavier back then than she is now....probably at least a 14 during RWHC....

I think she looks cute in 'Ugly Betty'.

But maybe that's just me.

Black girls are too concerned with trivial things like straightening their hair..My sister has fallen victum to this hair frenzy. Black women these days want to be chocolate colored with long hair. They're trying so hard to follow the European stereotype of beauty that it's a shame. I think people should embrace who they are no matter what they look like...Maybe that's just me.

America is definitely attractive and not at all fat -- but it should be noted she's a bit on the short size, which makes the size 6 number a little less shocking in terms of the notion of her as a "curvy" actress... a size 6 at her height is a bit bigger than a size 6 at, say, 5'6".

I'm pear-shaped, which means that even when I'm skinny skinny I have large hips/thighs/butt. At my adult skinny skinny skinniest (about 120 pounds and 5'7" -- this put my BMI at the very very low end of healthy, around 18ish) I generally wore a size 6 and occasionally squeezed into a size 4 pant, depending on the brand. However, I could wear a size 2 dress if the bottom was sufficiently forgiving.

I've always hated my bottom half, particularly considering at my heaviest I max out at a B/almost C cup, which seems incredibly unfair to me. The interesting thing is, every time I complain about it, almost without exception someone will point out to me that this makes me more attractive to black men. And, if I'm being a hundred percent honest, I do find that black men hit on me A LOT -- of course, I've got no way to compare this to how much they'd hit on me if I didn't have thunder thighs. It might just be that I'm just that hot ;)

But anyway. It's always struck me interesting that (1) people assume my angst about my body has much to do with men (really and truly, it doesn't. It's much more my desire to look like what *I* find attractive, which I will absolutely admit is culturally conditioned and is something I personally struggle against, but none of us is perfect) and (2) there seems to be this universal notion that different features appeal more or less to different races. As to how true (2) is, I think that would be really interesting to study.

As for the troll invasion... who's making the popcorn?

Aquafemme, I'm not trying to say skinny women, of any color, can't be beautiful, but that beauty is not dependent on the size of the woman in question. I don't think the size of the woman should enter into the conversation at all. If a woman is beautiful at a size 2, 12 or 20, then she's beautiful period.

I wonder if America Ferrera has just lost weight because she's been working so much recently. When she started getting attention she hadn't been doing a lot of work, but with the stress involved in being on a weekly TV show, I think it's understandable if she's lost a little weight naturally. Doesn't make her any less gorgeous as far as I'm concerned.

Beyonce et al only look "curvy" because they're not Kate Moss. Call me when they get someone in double-digit sizing. Until then, no one gets to call themselves "full-figured," "thick," or even straight up "large" unless they're under five feet tall or something.

P.S. I'm a little repulsed by all the commentary about what the commenter thinks "black women" do, don't do, or should do. *shudder*

TLF: Whoa! You have my body! And therefore know the agony of trying to find PANTS THAT FREAKING FIT. I'm currently around 123ish (at 5'7) and as for "slimmer=better," my doctor is making me drink freaking Ensure (I'm NINETEEN) because I have gotten too skinny and it is fucking with my health even though I am still within normal BMI range (a year and a half ago I was 10 pounds heavier, six months ago I was 5 pounds heavier. Oh stress).

Also, as to the commentor that said sometimes slimmer is better... Beyonce lost 25 pounds in a really quick time frame. Maybe she is totally fine now, like she probably was before. But after losing five pounds I have lost a lot of bone density which is a lot worse for my health than 5 extra pounds would be (not that they were really extra, but). I should add: I don't exercise nearly as much as I should, so probably that had something to do with it. My point is that you can't say someone looks healthy based on how slim they are--they might be just a slip on the ice away from a broken hip.

P.P.S. -- On the "pants that freaking fit" front, Gap's Curvy Cut jeans are a godsend. Not *quite* as curvy as would be perfect for me, but surprisingly close.

wow. I never thought I'd grab so much angst! Perhaps (definitely) my comments were not the most eloquent.

I actually agree with most of these comments. Both my mother and my sister have had (have) some serious body issues. My mother current has a BMI of 14 at the age of 62. So about bone density, I get it. I also know that a girl thinking she's fat rarely has anything to do with health.

I have one very minor criticism of the comments here. People need to realize that having rib bones showing does not mean that someone is dangerously skinny, or even thin for that matter. I'm a solid size 10 (and short to boot) and the heaviest I've ever been in my life. Yet still my ribs jut out significantly and there isn't an ounce of fat on my hip bones.

I just find it personally annoying that people could look at one part of my body and say I'm anorexic.

TLF: Troll invasion? I think you're jumping the gun. Not having 40 comments that consist of "yes, I agree" does not make for a "troll invasion". I just sat and read thought the entire conversation and it didn't sound to me like anything was completely unreasonable or disrespectful.

If a woman is beautiful at a size 2, 12 or 20, then she's beautiful period.

ehhhhhh... if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then there's probably some limit on that for, well, most beholders.

jeff, no need to patronize, I was referring to a specific troll who made one comment. I thought he'd post more but thankfully people seem to have ignored him, thus ridding him of ammunition. Good thing I didn't break out the popcorn just yet...

I don't understand your "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" comment. No one here is saying it isn't. Rather, we're questioning a society that trains its eyes to behold only certain bodies as beautiful, and not others.

I was watching the movie "Kiss Me Kate" last night. If Ann Miller tried to make it in the movies today, she'd be waaaay too fat. This is not news. Everyone discusses it about Monroe.

But it made me think: back in the day, movie stars were expected to do everything: act, sing, and dance. Kate Moss types can't be dancers because they don't have enough muscle. Yes, there are certainly problems with dancers being underweight (especially among ballerinas), but most do not have model-like bodies.

Someone commented earlier that there's more acceptance of "heavier" bodies in the music industry. Does anyone else think that could be because of the dancing required for music videos? I've done enough hip-hip to know that those are punishing workouts.

Maybe the problem is that we're not giving our movie stars enough to do. If they had to move like Ann Miller did, they might have a body more like her's.

Oh my God, I adore Ann Miller! She's wonderful! I wish we could see more stars move like she did. Sigh.

We've seen more and more standardized looks from movie stars over the years--compare Bette Davis to today's current crop of stars. But we shouldn't idolize the old days, either. When Judy Garland started going through puberty, studio execs were so concerned about her curves that they instructed the comissary to serve her nothing but chicken broth, no matter what she asked for.

Yeah, in retrospect it was a bit snarky and non-sensical. I just was disagreeing that size and beauty have no relation to each other.

I certainly don't disagree that society trains us on what is beautiful, for better or worse (and probably usually worse). But I suspect there are probably some biological factors as well. I guess it invites all sorts of questions: is there a way for society to train us to have a "fair" definition of beauty that doesn't include everyone? Could it be that everyone IS included?

I see beauty as a sort of arbitrary standard that is set. We have many standards, most of which are more measurable and less arbitrary (intelligence, jumping ability, I dunno), and are a combination of both stuff you're born and stuck with, and some mutable aspects. I guess I'm willing to play the game - since i can't conceive of a world without beauty, or one where we all have completely independent definitions of it, so that it basically ceases to have meaning - so long as our definition stays within reason (and it doesn't, always), and I try to expand my sense of it as much as possible, personally.

For me, I go along with it - using whatever I was given and making some efforts to conform. It's probably easier for me, because I think it is more common for guys, taken as a group, to have a narrower sense of what is beautiful than women, taken as a group. And actually, I think this could be interpreted as being either easier on, or harder on, women - either you can decide that women have a narrower standard to conform to, or this leaves more guys without what they're looking for.

To summarize my rambling: broadening the definition of beauty, either on a person-by-person or group basis, is good, I just don't know where it logically ends. I can't conceive of having no collective sense of it. I doubt it's ever happened before. Anyways, sorry for being so abstract.

Yeah...sorry to threadjack...really interesting comments, but Jeff's reminded me of this little phenomenon in a sexuality psychology course I had not too long ago:

http://goldennumber.net/beauty.htm

I don't agree with everything in that site, but as an eclectic scientist, I get gleeful when math, biology, and psychology head in the same direction. I don't swear by its findings, but it's a pretty interesting proposition regarding our similar aesthetic preferences culturally, historically, and mathematically.

Jeff,

I don't think it is so much "broadening the definition of beauty" as "refusing to artificially narrow it." There are certain aspects of beauty that just about everyone agrees about--symmetrical features (a la Denzel) good, clear skin, good, big eyes, narrow jaws on women, good, 0.7 to 0.8 waist-to-hip ratio on women, good. But a lot of women we see images of in movies, on billboards, etc., fall into narrower categories. They are more likely to be white, or if minority, light-skinned and with features that white people also have. They are likely to be extremely skinny. One suggested reason for this change in the acting world was that all of the sudden in the mid 90's, movie and TV actresses, not just fashion models, were featured on the covers of fashion magazines. So they were hit with the expectation that they should be as skinny as models, and they conformed. (Courtney Cox and Jennifer Aniston both slimmed down after they started being featured on magazine covers.)

The reason it is bad is because women and men both start looking at these images we are constantly bomarded with, and our expectations are affected. Notice that the men in movies and advertisements are not as good looking as the women, nor are their figures or faces as likely to be naturally pleasing. Even the good looking men vary more in skin tone, signs of age, and types of features then the good looking women do.

People find women over the size of 0 attractive--we just don't see many of them, in part because fashion designers prefer shapeless models whose bodies don't distract from the clothes they where. Like coathangers, a friend of mine explained to me once.

“big eyes, narrow jaws on women, good,�
Eh, I don’t know about that. I mean if you are East Asian you are not gonna have big eyes. Does that mean you can’t be pretty?
“0.7 to 0.8 waist-to-hip ratio on women�
That seems like an extremely narrow definition to me.
“narrow jaws on women�
I don’t know I have seen attractive women who had heavy jaws.
Those things that you say “just about everyone agrees about� are also socially constructed. I think by “just about everyone� you mean people in the West or people influenced by Western culture.
For example if you grow up in Mayan village I am pretty sure you’re not going to think a 0.7 to 0.8 waist-to-hip ratio is beautiful.

I've always been attracted to women with very strong jawlines, myself.

sojurner,

The big eyes/narrow jaw thing is a reflection of how much estrogen/how little testosterone a female had while in puberty (which estimates her future fertility)--I've known east asian women that I would say have big eyes--but I don't know if there are cultural variations on average face to eye size--so it may be relative within an ethnic group. I also don't think that a "narrow" jaw is necessarily not a "strong" jaw. The waist-to-hip ratio also says a lot about hormones during puberty.

I don't think that only women who fit those "standards" are likely to be beautiful, but that usually women who do are considered beautiful, and usually women who are considered beautiful fit on or more of them. (I noticed you didn't challenge symmetry and good skin--both of which have more to do with good health and less to do with sex hormones. Not that everyone who has bad skin is in poor health, but in order to have good skin you must be healthy, and in order for a person's face to be symmetrical, they had to have good health and nutrition from in utero on.)

I don't know about Mayan beauty standards in particular, but a Mayan woman with a 0.7 to 0.8 waist-to-hip ratio would also be more fertile. It is interesting to note that there are plenty of women who are full-figured who also have that waist to hip ratio. (And very few Victoria's Secret models who do. Notice that they all cock a hip or arch their backs in the magazine--otherwise most of them would look like they have no hips, which may suggest that they are underweight for their body type. Or likely to be infertile.)

Could they be western-influenced? I don't think I can reject that idea all together, but on the other hand, although a lot of models and actresses, are big-eyed, narrow-jawed and symmetrical, very few have the "desired" hip-to-waist ratio.

But perhaps I should have been more careful in my initial comment.

I don't personally care all that much about how broad or narrow the generally accepted standard of beauty is. I mean, sure, most people would prefer to be considered attractive rather than unattractive, if given the choice, but I'd gladly be ranked alongside a pygmy hippo if I knew for sure that it wasn't going to affect my career or my lifestyle. I think there are a lot of women who would gladly abandon the makeup, the dieting, the high heels, and other trappings of traditional beauty as long as they wouldn't be passed over for promotions, jobs, apartments, cabs, etc.

As for archetypical beauty standards - The ones that are the most lasting tend to imply youth and fertility. The small jaw, big eyes, and bounteous hips have all been prominent features in art going back millennia (think the Venus of Willendorf) and still appear in art today (think anime characters and their massive eyes). The fact that they've become the basis for a woman's success in life is definitely a patriarchal construct, but the standards themselves have a long basis in history.

As for jeans, I've found that Levi's 525s have a good fit through the leg and yet offer almost an overabundance of room in the seat and hip, which was quite the found for someone with the kind of backyard I'm carrying around.

Yeah, I just don't buy it at all. A short, somewhat dumpy man with an asymmetrical face named Humphrey became a sexy movie star in this country. So-called "objective" standards of beauty seem to have very little to do with what any given human being will find attractive in another human being.

And the women I'm thinking of definitely did not have narrow jaws.

I have naturally frizzy, curly, two-toned hair - “straight hair white women are praised for�?! HAHAHA! But of course I know what you mean. Because straight hair is something traditionally found on white women.

While I'm here, let me also tackle the mention of "black women with Eurocentric features" being the only women accepted on magazine covers and the like.
Why is it, exactly, that if a black woman isn't black as coal, with a soul mama afro and a nose as wide as a truck, she has "European features"?

Well, you started out almost accurately representing what I said and then you dropped the ball.

“Eurocentric features�?! I didn’t say anything about not having a “soul mamma afro� or a “nose as wide as a truck� means she has “European features�. I said “dark complexions� and “features (not) traditionally found on Caucasians�. Meaning we tend to see more black women in American media with lighter complexions and features we could traditionally also find on Caucasians than not, unlike with black men. You concluding it amounts to saying “any black woman without such and such features means she has European features� is fallacious, like an undistributed middle.

I can't help but feel, while folks seem to paternalistically think they are chiding "the media" for abusing black women, that this thinking is actually implying that if a black woman is attractive, the quality makes her European looking? So she's not attractive because she's European looking - she's European looking because she's attractive.

??? That there shouldn’t be a standard of beauty or a standard of color or race is precisely what is being argued against.

Are black women just supposed to look like Wesley Snipes?

No, but luckily that isn’t being argued here. I argue you aren't supposed to look like anything, which you don't seem to understand. What is being argued is that black women who, using your words, “look like Wesley Snipes� are underrepresented in American media. It is then deduced it is due to racism and sexism.

I’m a size 3 waist American (sometimes fit a size 2), with a 36-D bust. I’m just under 5’4. I, for one, do not feel naturally skinny women are being treated like there is something wrong with them or they aren‘t real women. There is, however, a tendency to conflate the obesity epidemic with unrealistic expectations of the female body from women who’s genetics and/or environment cannot and/or should not sustain so much and then punishing them for it.

Especially when it comes to “here today, gone tomorrow� pop socio-biological hypothesizes (and they are only hypothesizes - there isn’t much in the way of actual data), mostly western-centric, about female bodies and “fertility�. Most don’t even apply to the majority of women on the planet!

I have naturally frizzy, curly, two-toned hair - “straight hair white women are praised for�?! HAHAHA! But of course I know what you mean. Because straight hair is something traditionally found on white women.

While I'm here, let me also tackle the mention of "black women with Eurocentric features" being the only women accepted on magazine covers and the like.
Why is it, exactly, that if a black woman isn't black as coal, with a soul mama afro and a nose as wide as a truck, she has "European features"?

Well, you started out almost accurately representing what I said and then you dropped the ball.

“Eurocentric features�?! I didn’t say anything about not having a “soul mamma afro� or a “nose as wide as a truck� means she has “European features�. I said “dark complexions� and “features (not) traditionally found on Caucasians�. Meaning we tend to see more black women in American media with lighter complexions and features we could traditionally also find on Caucasians than not, unlike with black men. You concluding it amounts to saying “any black woman without such and such features means she has European features� is fallacious, like an undistributed middle.

I can't help but feel, while folks seem to paternalistically think they are chiding "the media" for abusing black women, that this thinking is actually implying that if a black woman is attractive, the quality makes her European looking? So she's not attractive because she's European looking - she's European looking because she's attractive.

??? That there shouldn’t be a standard of beauty or a standard of color or race is precisely what is being argued against.

Are black women just supposed to look like Wesley Snipes?

No, but luckily that isn’t being argued here. I argue you aren't supposed to look like anything, which you don't seem to understand. What is being argued is that black women who, using your words, “look like Wesley Snipes� are underrepresented in American media. It is then deduced it is due to racism and sexism.

I’m a size 3 waist American (sometimes fit a size 2), with a 36-D bust. I’m just under 5’4. I, for one, do not feel naturally skinny women are being treated like there is something wrong with them or they aren‘t real women. There is, however, a tendency to conflate the obesity epidemic with unrealistic expectations of the female body from women who’s genetics and/or environment cannot and/or should not sustain so much and then punishing them for it.

Especially when it comes to “here today, gone tomorrow� pop socio-biological hypothesizes (and they are only hypothesizes - there isn’t much in the way of actual data), mostly western-centric, about female bodies and “fertility�. Most don’t even apply to the majority of women on the planet!

"I have naturally frizzy, curly, two-toned hair - “straight hair white women are praised for�?! HAHAHA! But of course I know what you mean. Because straight hair is something traditionally found on white women."

Completely off-topic, Durga, but we have the same hair! Yay!

Don't feed the trolls (stonecraft) or concern trolls (suissesse).

On beauty:
I have very little research to back this up, but I suspect that there are several different kinds of beauty. First (and most obviously) there is the "sexual beauty," as Ismone talked about, which is related to success (hence diamond rings and the appeal of less than aesthetically pleasing rock stars) and fertility. Then there's "competitive beauty," which is an attempt to look like you belong to the upper class (tan and thin now, pale and fat in the middle ages). There's also a "beauty of compatibility," that is, people are often attracted to people that look like family or childhood friends. And finally, there's the cliche of "inner beauty," which is very subjective, but tends to involve self confidence and religion most. Which of these types is most important varies from person to person, hence beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

Durga your alleged point is not taken.

My point is this: None of the average black women on any magazine or walking down the street for that matter have cleffed chins, ski-slope noses, or even light eyes! So how exactly is it that these woomen are "european looking"? Is it because they don't have dramatically African features - even though most American Blacks do NOT have those features?
Does Beyonce really look that different in the face than hundreds of black girls you can find runniing around Atlanta? Not at all. But she's "european looking." Oooookkkkk.

I stick to my argument that there's some creeping racism in there.

And I also stick to my argument (which the one sista seconded and I thank her for that) that we are seeing a shift to a standard that is just as discriminating as the other one. When I see a Dove campaign purporting to represent "real women" and there's not ANYBODY who looks vaguely like me or 60 percent of average women (yes, that's how many women are believed to be UNDER 5'3) I have a problem with it. Why are we talking about what's "real"?

People can think whatever they want. But to this day (I'm 27) I bear a left arm full of cuts and scars that I placed there as a teenager to rebel against my body. Its offense:

I wasn't thick like a black woman is supposed to be.

You can NOT shift oppressive language and then call it empowerment! Period.

Not that I don't agree that it's ridiculous for women like Beyonce and Scarlett Johannsen to be considered representations of normal sized women- and I can't stand either of them- but "full figured" doesn't necessarily mean large. It means having a figure (ie: breasts, a waist and hips), so a woman who is 36-24-36 would actually be considered "full figured." It's this that does distinguish them from the majority of women in hollywood, because most of them are a straight shot all the way down.

The term actually used to be a compliment, but you know- because of the fact that the "ideal" figure for women is none at all these days, it's not any more. I mean, Marilyn Monroe was considered "full figured"- and her body isn't any more easily attainable than Kate Moss's.

People always look at the 1950's and think "Oh! Wow! Bigger women were the thing then!" But the thing was- the ideal was for waists to be even tinier than they are now, but also for women to have larger hips and breasts. Which frankly is pretty damn tough.

I worked in a vintage store- believe me- no one had an easy time of fitting into 50's dresses. So yeah, that's just some food for thought.

Look, it's possible that Dita Von Teese could be considered "curvy" or mayyyyyybe even "full figured" (but come now, not in the way it's used euphemistically), but with her (alleged?) measurements of 32-22-33 (standing at 5'6") she's hardly anything close to what is meant when these magazines pat themselves on the back for featuring "curvy" women. When magazines go on about "curvy" or "full-figured" women in media, there's this implication that oh, they understand that not every woman can look like Kate Moss, so by playing up someone like Beyonce, now they've given girls a "reasonable" goal. Which, of course, is total and utter bullshit for all the obvious reasons.

I find the "real women have curves" argument to leave me out along with the "real women have big breasts/etc" argument.

Thank you, Ultra. Generalizations hold true no matter what color you are (though I'm confused by the "white women are known for large breasts" comment - sure as hell not on MY chest). This kind of discussion always brings out people who suddenly get defensive about their large breasts - usually the line goes something like this, "well MY GIRLS and I get plenty of attention and real women have breasts!" - and start getting catty towards small-chested women. Some of these people should really know better.

I have several "curvy" friends with small breasts, and I'm pretty much average to bottom-curvy myself (not so much pear, since my shoulders are proportionate). I guess I'm just pretend.

That said, my sister and I inherited amazing calves. May I call them "the girls?"

As far as any inherent racism, I don't think that was the intention here. Although comparing to "European" features may seem insulting, I think it was more a comment on the typical features of most people you see in the media, not necessarily implying such features only come from Europe. Does that even make any sense? I do notice on average the women aren't as dark as their male actor counterparts...I don't think that's racist, just an observation.

My point is this: None of the average black women on any magazine or walking down the street for that matter have cleffed chins, ski-slope noses, or even light eyes!
So how exactly is it that these woomen are "european looking"?

Pray tell where I said anything about being “European looking�. Please stick to what I actually say, not some distorted version that better suits something you can contradict.

Does Beyonce really look that different in the face than hundreds of black girls you can find runniing around Atlanta?

First of all, I don’t live down there - I live near Detroit. Secondly, you’re missing the point. Annoyingly so. Black women who look like Beyonce are not underrepresented in American media; black women who look like my black friends and the black women I see the majority of the time are - the women with dark-toned skin and features not traditionally found on Caucasians. Unlike with black men. You create a strawman with the term “European features� which wouldn’t make much sense since Europeans differ - from my Irish ancestors to my Croatian ones. It blatantly misrepresents what I’m saying and even my thought process as it implies Europeans somehow have dibs on certain features.

Not at all. But she's "european looking." Oooookkkkk.

*sigh*

this brings me back to the days where i used to read seventeen, and how theyd always have the section "clothes for your body type!" and how mine was completely non existent. there was super skinny, tall, flat chested (why girls mags assume EVERY pubescent girl is completely flat chested is beyond me...me and lots of girls i knew had at least B cups in middle school), and then "curvy". now, i am completely hour glass shaped, medium sized hips and boobs with a small waist, but the "curvy" girl was always at least a size 10 if not a 14/16 whereas im a size 5. it made me angry that they used the word curvy to pretty much mean fat (yes, a little harsh, but i was a teenager) and also because the big girls they pictured werent curvy at all..just round. there may be more body types listed now but im pretty sure curvy is always taken to mean plus size in every womens magazine.

God. I'm sorry, this whole thread is really, really getting on my nerves and I can't quite explain why. Look, people, these are actual human beings' bodies we are talking about, with all our complaints and judgements and labels and neuroses. I feel like somehow even we have been subtly (or maybe not so subtly) objectifying the female form as well. I'm really sorry I can't come up with an especially intellectually clear argument at the moment, but maybe some of you will get this:

I'd like to clear up a few things here. Do you want to know what a size 14 to 16 (hi, elektrodot.) 175 pound, 5'6" woman can look like? This. (Sorry for the terrible photo quality, my phone & the dorm bathroom was all I could do spur of the moment). Is that fat, not fat, curvy, "full figured," "real woman," oppressive to the skinny and/or small- and/or large- breasted? Does she need to lose weight FOR HER HEALTH because OMG her BMI is considered "overweight"? Are you upset because her "type" is or is not included under some particular heading in the magazines? What?? Oh, I forgot the ever important measurements, which are 38-30-44. Does knowing those numbers now change your first impression of the picture in any way? Was your first impression of the picture influenced by the numbers already given right off the bat?

*sigh*

(Also, just for the record, here is a smile-at-the-camera picture of my face. Hi guys).

I saw a magazine headline today that was something like, "Jennifer Hudson's new diet!" and I got really sad :(