| |
|
I actually like Tate because she's shaped like an actual woman, really. It makes me feel nice inside.
While I agree that Flyboy's response was more vitriolic than was called for, I have to admit I find comments to the effect that some women are shaped like "real women" and others are shaped like, I dunno, fake women? a little unsettling. There was a comment in the Scott Pilgrim thread expressing a similar sentiment, lemme find it--
I just don't want Ramona and Kim to be played by ubergeneric American TV babes with toned midriffs, which seems all too probable sadly.
Perhaps I'm assuming too much when I infer that the above statement implies that artist Bryan Lee O'Malley portrays Kim and Ramona as shaped like "real" women and that having them played in the film by attractive young women with toned mid-riffs would be a transgression against the source material, which, of course, portrays the female characters as "normal shaped" (despite the fact that just about every character in Scott Pilgrim is shaped exactly like the next). I could be wrong. But comments like this make me feel like there's a popular idea out there that people whose appearance appeals to a broad demographic are somehow not normal.
Apologies for making a big deal about this. I realize, of course, that there is a problem with the way women are sometimes portrayed in the media, and there's no fault in identifying with an actress because she's shaped more like yourself than another actress. But I sometimes take this personally because dammit, the way my face and skeleton is shaped is not my fault, and I occasionally am made to feel like having a fast metabolism and doing a sit-up occasionally places me beyond the realm of normal folk.
Shit I dunno. It's sounding, now, like a weird thing to get upset about. But there it is. |
|
|
