Should SHE be insulted at “full-figured’?
Many commenters on my post regarding Christina Hendricks’ abrupt termination of an Australian interview have argued vociferously that the actress was justified, suggesting that my criticism of her is sexist and unfair. I have pointed out that her objections to being referred to as “full-figured” were in flagrant disregard of the interviewer’s obvious meaning (she is famously voluptuous). I have noted that Ms. Hendricks’ curves are, in professional terms, her “bread and butter”—her trademark, her most salesworthy asset, her primary advantage over her competitors, the basis of her notoriety, the focus of her wardrobe, and the main reason she is a popular subject of photographers, an international celebrity and wealthy. To no avail. My argument that such a woman should not be indignant when the most obvious reason she is in a position to be interviewed at all comes up in a question in a publicity interview, whether the question is gracefully phrased or not, falls on deaf ears.
So I now invite these treasured Ethics Alarms gender warriors to engage in this simple thought experiment. Would they extend their defense to Christina if she were one of these remarkable women?
Presumably so.
If not, I’d be fascinated to learn the reasoning.
Ethics Alarms 
Those women have huge boobs! But many of them (not all) look like big, natural boobs. Those women are just going about living their lives. Does the fact that their boobs are huge suddenly excuse the rest of us from being polite and civil to them? If they gave some indication that they were willing to talk about their boobs, then hey, go ahead. But if they have indicated that they don’t wnt to talk about, it is rude to ignore their wishes.
You’re not answering the question. If they agree to a TV interview, what do you think the reason for the interview might be?
Well, it depends. If they were nominated for a gardening award, and all the interviewer wanted to ask them about was their boobs, they should certainly feel insulted. If someone stopped them randomly in the middle of the street for an interview, no, I don’t they should necessarily expect to be asked about their boobs, or feel any less insulted about being asked than women with normally sized boobs. In America, it is still considered rude to ask about people’s sexualized parts as a routine matter, no matter what their size. People are rude, and may do it anyway, but I don’t see why the one being questioned has no right to feel insulted by it. Women are more than walking boobs, even those with huge ones. However, if it was a show about women with huge boobs, then yes, they probably shouldn’t be surprised or insulted, as they were forewarned, and agreed to do it anyway.
Look up Irish elk and it all makes sense. It underscores natural selection versus sexual selection. I guess saying the Irish elk had a “full rack,” might have offended the ones who can’t mention the elephant in the living room.
So Jack Marshall, tell me about your penis: size, shape, distinguishing marks – we’d love to know all about it. Now I’m only asking this because it’s obvious that you only got ahead in your fields because you are a man, and if you’re willing to put yourself out there so much for public consumption with this blog, then you should not feel uncomfortable discussing such details. After all, there’s no way people would even be responding to you, and you definitely wouldn’t be so arrogant were you not a man.
Dumb and willfully ignorant line of attack, Heather. I’d translate it as “my mind’s locked, don’t annoy me with reality.” The interviewer, after all, didn’t ask Hendricks, “Show us your tits!” You have adopted a fascinating variation of the slippery slope, applying it not to hypothetical future situations, but the actual situation. Interesting, but stupid and dishonest.
If I were the late John Holmes, yours might be an appropriate comment, and if I were, I, like Hendricks, would have no reason to be offended. Since I’m no Holmes, however, bite me.
I think it was entirely understandable that she got irritated by the interviewer. I imagine she’d like to be thought of as an actress first and a body second.
You say “such a woman should not be indignant when the most obvious reason she is in a position to be interviewed at all comes up in a question in a publicity interview”.
I think the very fact that it’s assumed – and you seem to assume – that her body shape is all there is to her, is grounds enough for getting hecked off.
Women can’t really win. Her figure, you say, is the “focus of her wardrobe” and site this as one reason why she should accept questions she doesn’t appreciate. Do you wear pants that are too big for you? Who’s figure isn’t the focus of their wardrobe?
Christina Hendricks is an actress, who also happens to have a particular body shape. The women in your link have jobs and do, I imagine, all sorts of things, as well as happening to have large breasts. If you can’t see past the latter, then it’s really just a bit sad for you.
But this is fantasy land. The topic is show business, and Hendricks’ niche is “sexy, busty redhead.” She is immediately in the running for sexy busty redhead roles, and benefits from that. She knows it. She seeks it out. Saying she is an actress before she is a body sounds nice, but in the realities of the profession, it is naive beyond words. All things being equal, Hendricks loses to better actresses, and there are literally, and I mean literally, thousands of them. But all things aren’t equal. One of the things that isn’t equal is her figure; another is her face. But her face is a lot less remarkable in Hollywood than her figure.
Your argument is unhinged from reality; it is ideology misapplied.
If probably is the case that actresses receive roles based solely on their looks very, very frequently – which makes it all the more understandable for this to annoy Hendricks.
Unless she’s outrageously shallow – (neither of us being acquainted with her, we could hardly say) I’d imagine she takes more pride in her talents honed and achievements earned than the body shape which she has had no great control over.
Where we disagree seems to be your assertion that she “seeks it out” which you seem to have based on the fact that she wears clothes that fit and has been photographed a lot.
Christina Hendricks has large breasts. Admittedly it’s on just the information gleamed from this one blog posting, but you seem far more obsessed with them than she is.
I’m not obsessed with them at all. The point is that they are her livelihood. Every sex symbol insists that she is an artist. The inescapable fact is that Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Katherine Hepburn never took photographs like this, and never had to…ever: http://static01.avaz.ba/arhiva/februar2012/hendricks_143573121.jpg
Yup, her professional image is completely beyond her control, and she has nothing to do with it.
I didn’t say her professional image is completely beyond her control, and she has nothing to do with it. I said she has no great control over her body shape.
You typed: Professional image completely beyond her control. She has nothing to do with it.
I typed: No great control over her body shape. I write it twice as you seemed the miss the difference the first time. Perhaps you read it while some breasts were in the vicinity 😉
A pointless distinction. She isn’t desperately hiding her assets, she’s enthusiastically promoting and exploiting them, except when she feels like playing a victim to an interviewer who didn’t use a euphemism that met her standards.
I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s pointless to correct an error. Again, I would disagree that she’s exploiting the fact that she happens to have large breasts. And I wouldn’t call genuinely being irked by a question “playing a victim”.
What seems more telling than the way in which Hendricks does or doesn’t present herself is your interpretation of it.
I know of you only what I’ve read in this post, so I can’t claim any certainty, (Just as you can’t of Hendricks character) but you do seem to sail dangerously close to objectifying women.
Dangerously’ from my perspective, Of course, it would only be so for you if you consider objectifying women a bad thing.
It’s not an error, and I do not objectify women. I accept and understand that some actresses who are paid to be objectified accept that status by doing so, and are estopped from suddenly playing the feminist card on those who correctly read the press relaeses. This is not about “women.” It is about actresses, in a business (which I am in, by the way) that treats sexual features as assets, qualifications and decisive factors in employment and career.
I don’t doubt that that’s how the business works very frequently. I’m sure Michael Bay’s decision to cast Megan Fox in the atrocious Transformer films was largely based on her appearance. And the director certainly does his best to treat her as an object throughout the movie.
I’m sure Ms Fox made a lot of money by making the film. But I still wouldn’t feel that that entitled me to ask her questions about her breasts if I were to meet her.
To go down your road a little, even if I did think that an actress paid to be objectified opened herself as fair game for every tawdry inquiry (which I don’t), I still wouldn’t consider Hendricks as someone who has willingly accepted being objectified.
I’m sure that she knows that she is – Most young women have probably felt the same at some time or other – but the objectification is an act by the viewer.
She was asked a personal question that she didn’t appreciate and objected to it. I don’t think that her employment history should be a bar to her doing so.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting discussion.
ARRRGH! Nobody’s saying YOU would be justified saying anything about her breasts! That would be rude, and she could slap you in the face with justification. The situation involved an interview on a publicity tour. Interviewers ask personal questions that relate to the particular actress or actor. Professional actors know that, and are expected and indeed paid to tolerate it. And the interviewer didn’t say anything about her breasts—she chose a legitimate, if ambiguous, euphemism for “curvy.”
The inescapable fact is that Meryl Streep, Glenn Close and Katherine Hepburn never took photographs like this, and never had to…ever
What nonsense. None of those women were hard on the eyes while young, and definitely took sexy photographs during that time.
Sexy Katharine Hepburn: http://menelwena.eklablog.com/katharine-hepburn-a38946120
http://www.fanpop.com/spots/cleopatra/images/18876489/title/katharine-hepburn-cleopatra-photo
Sexy Meryl Streep: And remember, unlike Hendricks, Streep has actually done nude scenes, http://www.merylstreepmovies.net/2010/07/29/meryl-streep-nude-the-devil-wears-nada/ (NSFW due to nipples)
Sexy Glenn Close: I don’t even have to link for this one, because she was in a little movie called “Fatal Attraction” where her breasts were quite prominently featured.
The women were artists, who had boobs. Sometimes they used them in their work from time to time. Doesn’t make them less deserving of respect and civility, or to be defined solely by their boobs.
You’re trolling now, deery. Everyone knows the difference between professional cheesecake actresses like Hendricks, who might occasionally get a chance to play against type in a non-sex role, and legitimate actresses like the ones I mentioned, who will take on an occasional sexy role if a script calls for it. You are denying the obvious to be contrary, and pretending there is no distinction when there is. I’ve made the rational argument clearly. Go ahead with the last word if it makes you happy; this is a waste of time. Your argument essentially boils down to saying that there is no difference professionally between Carmen Electra and Shelly Duvall. There is, and nobody knows it better than Christina Hendricks, no matter how much she may pretend otherwise.
I don’t quite know where all this vitriol toward Hendricks comes from – I’d almost suspect you were an ex-boyfriend if it weren’t for your picture being displayed with every post 😉 (In fairness, I’m no oil painting either :).
I honestly wasn’t aware of Hendricks taking on any ‘sex roles’ with the exception of her relatively brief appearance in Firefly. Though, even if she has starred in Fatal Attraction 2 or the like, I’d still argue she’s deserving of respect just like anyone.
Where’s the vitriol? She was unfair and unprofessional, and I said so: this is an ethics commentary blog. I have no dog in this hunt: if I have a bias, I state it up front. And I don’t like having every opinion anyone disagrees with attributed to non-ethical considerations; you should rad the comment policies on that score.
Trolling how? You’ve already said that you consider Hendricks a good, but not excellent actress. Nobody would ever say the same of Carmen Electra. Hendricks has never done a Playboy pictorial, and has not even appeared in a nude scene like Electra, Streep, and Glenn Close. She appears in roles like “abused woman” in ER. Her current role involves her wearing mostly 1950’s/1960’s office attire. She has taken some pictures that show cleavage,, like 99% of women in the US. ust because her boobs are large doesn’t mean its ok to treat her with less civility and respect than we would anyone else. You note that Nicholson and Franz have done nude scenes. I don’t think it would polite or ok to ask to talk about their penis, especially if they have indicated that they don’t want to talk about it. And nobody would seriously argue that this was so.
Yes, and Dennis Franz and Jack Nicholson have also done nude scenes. That’s not the issue, and you know it.
I’m trying to boil your argument down to it’s essence Jack. Basically you are saying that because Hendricks agreed to be objectified in one context for profit (acting), she now cannot complain about being objectified in another context (an interviewer talking about her boobs)? An explicit consent in one area functions as implicit consent in all other areas?
Though I have to say if accurate, this particular post undercuts that notion. None of the women pictured (that I know of at least) have consented to being objectified in that manner. If interviewed, I believe that they should expect the same amount of politeness due to anyone else.
“Basically you are saying that because Hendricks agreed to be objectified in one context for profit (acting), she now cannot complain about being objectified in another context (an interviewer talking about her boobs)? An explicit consent in one area functions as implicit consent in all other areas?”
No, wrong. She didn’t “agree to be objectified”—she accepted employment fame and riches in a role and as a type that is, in fact, dependent of physical characteristics above all. it is not “another context” at all. It is all a part of her promotion as an actress. You are acting as if she’s being interviewed because of her recipes or singing voice.
And this “None of the women pictured (that I know of at least) have consented to being objectified in that manner” actually mad me laugh out loud. You do realize that all of those women had cosmetic surgery to look like that, right? A woman who intentionally blows her breast up the size of MiniCoopers wants to be looked at, and intends to have her giant breasts define her. They have not only consented, they have engineered their objectification.
Not to be indelicate, but at least half those women had far too much sag for those boobs to be anything but real. Some of them were just as obviously fake. However does that give us the right to treat them as objects in all contexts? I hardly think so.
No, wrong. She didn’t “agree to be objectified”—she accepted employment fame and riches in a role and as a type that is, in fact, dependent of physical characteristics above all. it is not “another context” at all. It is all a part of her promotion as an actress. You are acting as if she’s being interviewed because of her recipes or singing voice.
So if she whether she is promoting a new accordian line, or wants to talk about her new work with saving kittens, she should always have to endure questions about her boobs. Because she has big ones, and you think she was hired solely on the basis of them. No dignity or escape ever for her. No wonder she cut the interview short.
I am sorry Jack, but I would have cut the interview short too. The interviewer knew Ms. Hendricks was uncomfortable or felt it was rude with the phrase “full figured”. After being informed she thought it rude, he then turn around and asked the exact same question .
Perhaps phrasing the question differently, would have avoided conflict.
She is a beautiful woman. As beautiful as any actor out there. She is a talented actor.
Surely Ms. Hendricks has played roles other than the sexy, busty red head actor. Am I wrong?
Here Lady Gaga, whose made her career out of flaunting her body, now upset because similar mention isn’t made of Adele’s figure….He who lives by the sword…..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2227122/Lady-Gaga-praises-British-stars-confidence-weighs-body-image-debate.html
Love it.
I think all of you — ALL of you — are missing the point here. In the US, where “you can never be too rich or too thin,” the term “full figured” has become a euphemism for overweight, for “plus-size” women. If the interviewer had commented on Hendricks’ “great figure” or “sexy body” or her general “sex appeal,” she probably wouldn’t have taken offense. I’m surprised that so many female commenters haven’t taken note of this. “Full figured” means FAT, and that’s that. I think Hendricks was offended by the term, even though she’s not fat, just zaftig and gorgeous. So she makes her money on her looks, okay. She just didn’t want to be called “full-figured” because she knows that in general it’s a pejorative term.
And it’s a shame. And it’s why there is an epidemic of anorexia among young women. If you’re 5’10” and weigh more than 105 pounds (grossly underweight by medical standards) you can’t be a runway model, no matter how gorgeous you may be. And runway models live on their looks. So they starve themselves, take pills, engage in bulimic behavior, because THEIR profession needs them to be really, really thin,and, if possible, boobless. Hendricks’ profession wants either/or, and she’s an “or” — that is, big busted, beautiful, and good at what she does. Just because she makes a living being beautiful and big-boobed doesn’t mean she can get beyond the “full figured” euphemism.
I was anorexic when I was in college. I’m 5’8″ and thought I was FAT because I weighed 113 pounds. This will date me, but my college girlfriends always laughed and said I could be the poster child for the “Feed Biafra” movement. For years i shopped for T-shirts in the little boys department, and never wore a bra. Didn’t need one. As luck would have it, the men I dated weren’t into just breasts.
It’s a national disease — at least among women. Men want big boobs and skinny bodies. Those attributes don’t, by nature, go together. So we also have the plastic surgery epidemic… be really thin, but you’d better have big breasts. It’s sick, and plastic surgeons are making fortunes on it.
Honestly, i think the discussion about Hendricks ignores and minimizes (embarrassing for everyone engaged in it) a much bigger problem. That is, who is telling women and girls that they can be real life Barbie dolls? (All legs, no waist, big tits.) Barbie is a man’s dream, but it’s not real. The “women’s movement,” now more than 40 years in the making, has not focused on this, except for a couple of organizations dedicated to teaching pre-teens that being Barbie shouldn’t and can’t be a life goal, and won’t and can’t bring them happiness. Kudos to them.
For the sake of full disclosure, I will say that I’m still 5’8″ and wear size 10 jeans. And regardless of my opinions in societal terms, still wonder if I’m FAT. What has this culture done to me? If I got implants and wore a 36DD bra, but still wore size 10 jeans, I would nevertheless be offended mightily if anyone called me “full-figured.” I know the code, and most women do. Unfortunately for Henricks’ interviewer, he/she did not.
To say that she’s asking to be looked at by dirty old men because of what she decides to wear is abhorrent. That’s dangerously close to the excuse some rapists give about their victims…”They were asking for it, because they were in a tight revealing dress…” and the like. It shouldn’t matter what clothes women wear (or men for that matter) we are all deserving of respect until shown otherwise by our actions.
Sorry I shouldn’t have said ”dirty old men”…I’m sure the young fellas take a good look too haha. The fact is she’s a gorgeous woman who happens to be very successful and all the more power to her, I say.
No, it isn’t close to that at all. Rape is an assault, a felony, a crime and a human rights offense. Staring, ogling and talking about what is thrust in one’s face is legal, and in Hendricks’ field, encouraged conduct. She encourages it, and then complains about the response.
I had some regard for Christina’s looks – till I read somewhere that she objects to being at all referred to for her figure. Who is she kidding? After watching whatever little of Mad Men I could tolerate, I’m convinced that Christina has that role exclusively on account of her looks. She has neither depth nor range as an actress – only width!
If she had no intention of being known for her figure, she shouldn’t model the way she does. Actually, even if she weren’t so hypocritical about it, many of her photos are over-the-top and make you feel embarassed (for her, that is).
So, in view of her stance, she appears to want her cake… and roll in it too. Na-na-na Christina, you can’t have it both ways… I completely agree with the views expressed in both posts. It’s time someone called the empress out on her lack of clothes!