Carrying AngleI've been writing over at Misbehaving.Net about how women are constantly served up visual images in women's magazines and tv and all media that they should look like skinny little girls.
As you know, most of the models are literally skinny young girls. Grown women, thanks to hormones and child birth, can NOT look like skinny young girls. But that doesn't stop the tyranny of this obsessive young-oriented media flood coming at us 24x7 to look like little girls.
Are little girls acceptable because they are not powerful, competent women? Are powerful, competent women unacceptable? You can ruminate on that as you wish and feel free to comment over at Misbehaving.net.
This is a link to a physical description of how boys and girls mature into men and women. It's the first time I've even read the scientific jargon on why men's arms and legs look more "straight" and their bodies appear more plank-ish than women's. I've always noticed it as a writer, and wondered about it. The "carrying angle" is the term for how our arms and legs are more straight (men) or curvy (women) and also, you'll see at that link they also site the obvious statement that men's muscles are more prominent than women's muscles, which are more "padded" with fat.
Think of Kate Moss -- as a "biological mature woman", she's sub-par because she looks more like a skinny little boy. She does NOT have that aspect which mature women SHOULD develop as they grow -- their shoulders should be more narrow than their hips. But as a model, she's a raging success. Of course, tell me about the art directors who choose the pictures. I'm generalizing, but aren't a few of them gay men? Is there possibly a reason they prefer women who look like skinny little boys?