Women today--received this via text

[Pollyanna]

Why is that sad? They're fertility symbols, right? They probably *should* look post-partum! If you think fertility is a good thing, why would the natural physical consequences of that fertility be a bad thing?

Sure, that is true in theory but after a while you just want your body back

[MissCrabette]

I think the difference between the upper and lower pictures in the original post is that the women on the lower tier look healthy. I don't know if it is the lighting, camera angle, or whatever, but the women on the upper tier look...sickly. Even though that upper tier is probably all size 0 and the lower tier would all be around a size 2 or 4 in today's sizes - somehow the upper tier pictures all manage to look ill in some way. Go figure!

Keep in mind that the the pictures in the top row are all candids, while the ones in the bottom row are posed glamour shots. I think that makes a difference.

[Vanquisher]

Sooo, I look at those primitive female statues as...grotesque. Looking like that is a "natural consequence" of fertility only for a few months post-partum. Before our current culture of obesity women routinely went back to their prepregnancy sizes a few months to a year after giving birth. Something has changed with our society that has encouraged an epidemic of obesity.

Wow. Grotesque?

That's uplifting. I guess I'll join the other obese women who aren't as awesome for being able to manage their pre-pregancy shapes and try to ignore this.

Signed,

Me - a size 14. In today's sizes! Down from a 24 at one point, thank you very much.

[houseelf]

I'll bite...

I like the OP because it starts discussions like this. ITA with the ensuing comments that it truly just is another way for women to pit against each other. That discussion has merit but I'm more interested in this point: Why are we culturally conditioned to loathe our bodies? We are saturated with the message that our looks are far more important than our character.

During our recent trip to So. Cal, my 12 y.o. son joked that he was looking forward to seeing "California Girls". On the last day of the trip he commented, I haven't really seen any "California Girls". (Note for the record: if he saw someone remotely interesting he would avert his eyes and be sorely embarrassed by even being interested. In the last few months I have noticed him noticing girls in a shy way. It is very sweet. Stay Golden Pony Boy). Anyway, this sparked a fantastic discussion about what real people look like. Even magazine cover models don't look like that IRL. I think that this discussion is just as important for our boys as our girls.

[diggitydot]

Actually, being what we would consider overweight was a "status symbol" in European cultures not that long ago. The willowy figure wasn't stylish until the 20th century.

The comments about those statues being "grotesque" make me sad. They seem intentionally hurtful to those among us who look like those images.

[reciprocity]

You're not going to find Christina Hendricks on a cat walk, gorgeous as she is.

That has more to do with the fact that runway models are picked based on whether they make the clothes look good and often based on interchangeability, not whether they are considered attractive by a large group of people.

[SoonerTexan]

Honestly original comment was meant to be tongue in cheek based in where I am right now having had a baby 2 months ago