“I’m fat — and do not care what haters say!
Deep breath, quick turn around the garden on this beautiful day, another deeeeep breath, think quiet thoughts. OK.
I shall approach today’s subject by posing a question and then I’ll plunge right in and you can be furious with me, agree or possibly not care one way or the other.
(I know I promised we would be flying off to Paris today, all decked out in navy blue, instead of witnessing me flying off the deep end of annoyance (that’s a euphemism btw), but I need to throw this out for discussion.
Background: As we all know, major brands have been putting women of a certain age and of an age certain in their fashion and cosmetic ads. We also know why they’re doing this. We’re an important demographic, i.e. considerable disposable income. Why else would they include famous faces over 50 which, at the same time, begs the question, why do they then Photoship them to the point in some cases where we have no idea who the famous faces might be?
A few of the starring players: Helen Mirren, 69; Joni Mitchell, 71; Charlotte Rampling, 68; Jessica Lange, 64; Catherine Deneuve, 70; Lauren Hutton, 69; Jane Fonda, 77; Joan Didion, 80; Inès de la Fressange, 57; and the baby, Julianne Moore, 54. Then we have the “let’s insult their intelligence” marketing approach wherein Christy Turlingon, Stephanie Seymour and Nicole Kidman, all in their 40s, are thrown into the “older” campaigns.
Can’t you imagine the strategy meetings? “OK, people, we’ve got the teens, 20s and 30s covered, no problem. But, what should we do with the 40s? They’re not ‘young, young’ but then again they’re definitely not old. They present a tricky challenge. Whatever. Let’s just toss them in with the old gals. No one will notice.”
Never mind. That’s not my point today.
My question to you is: Have you noticed, among these women what is the absolute common denominator?
Let me tell you.
They are all slim. Some are exceedingly thin. So, where are the famous faces whose bodies have — with age — become slightly more “mature” shall we say? No, not “fat” or “obese” just somewhat rounder, more in a normal range of real women. If we can become accustomed to looking at older faces why can’t we also accept slightly more realistic body shapes?
It’s a question, open for debate. What do you think?
Please don’t tell me that the fashion magazines and even Sports Illustrated have “celebrated” les femmes rondes. In these instances, all the women are young. Are these once-a-year “body issues” (literally and figuratively) pandering, a gimmick, a demographic? Probably.
However, to my knowledge, major brands have not been interested in women of a certain age who do not adhere to a strict slender aesthetic.
|Candice Bergen, back in the day. . .|
I’m posing this question because I was intrigued by what the exceptionally beautiful Candice Bergen, 68, said about herself in her new book, A Fine Romance.
“They maintain their weight by routinely vomiting after major meals consisting of a slice of steak or a filet of fish,” she writes. “I am incapable of this.”
|With Alan Alda.|
|Look at that lovely face.Of course she’s not “fat” unless perhaps she measures herself by Hollywood and fashion model standards.|
She does display a delicious sense of humor which by any criteria has no expiration date.
|Oh, while were on the subject of prejudices, where are the women of color d‘un certain age? There is a lot we could discuss and it’s not only physique and Photoshop.Have we really come a long way baby?|