This article pisses me off in *so* many ways. The obvious, is the point that the writer was making, that she's a beautiful woman, but to the fashion industry, she's nothing, because she just doesn't fit the mold they design for. So change the mold to fit more women. Yes? So why is she so woman-unfriendly in making her point?
Let me pick out some sentences that I find questionable.
Here, she's quoting Lawren Sample, Hendricks' stylist. It's the quote that they chose to inset. She refers to women whose bodies she doesn't approve of as "clothes hangers". Really? That's how you're going to defend larger women? By objectifying smaller ones? Because we can't have different sizes.
What really got me is the inset near the end:
Sexy Curves - 78 per cent of men say they prefer curvaceous women, while just 7 per cent prefer skinny girls.Really? 7 percent prefer girls?! Who knew the rate of pedophilia was so high? /sarcasm. Again it's the "curvy women are women. Thin women are girls" meme that is supposed to be supportive of curvy women. Clearly, we can't support ALL women, only a certain subset are valuable.
And lest you think I am being unfair to the article writer, look at the final line:
I've never met a woman who looks like a child, or an adolescent boy. Why is it always 'boy' in that example? Have you noticed that? The people who denigrate small women always compare them to young boys, never young girls. It seems to me to be another example of humiliation via transphobia. But back to the point, I know small women with small breasts and hips who look like women, with small breasts and hips. They don't look like children or boys. Sometimes they look like they could use a sandwich or an IV drip. But mostly, they just look like small women.
It's truly frustrating that in an article meant to condemn the fashion industry for their short-sighted view of women's bodies that the author chooses to have a short-sighted view of women's bodies.
I think the quote that amused (in an LOLFAIL manner) me most was this:
Okay, so it's "But I don't know how to make any other kinds of clothes. If I try to make clothes for anything but one extremely rare shape, it'll be harder and take more time, and that'll cost money." But in the meantime, the vast majority of women, even the beautiful Ms. Hendricks can't buy the clothes because they're made to fix rectangular* women. So where is the profit in that?!
I'm going to make Product X and tell the world that only the very best people can buy Product X, and then when zillions of people want to buy Product X say, nope, I only can make this for 1% of the population because that's how it looks best. That's the worst logic I've ever seen out of a capitalist except for maybe "buying on margin".
*Not a slur on those women. Just as "pear-shaped" and "apple-shaped" aren't necessarily slurs.