Skip Nav
Healthy Recipes
These Lemon Raspberry Muffins Call For 1 Surprising Ingredient
Hangovers
What's the Deal With Alcohol and Ibuprofen?
Health News
Here's Exactly How Much You Should Be Exercising If You Sit at a Desk All Day, Says Science

The New York Times Criticizes Weight of Actresses Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Kate Hudson, and Christina Hendricks

The NYT Thinks Hollywood Is Looking a Little Marilyn

I think FabSugar will totally agree with me when I say: the ladies of the Golden Globes were looking fierce this year! Everyone looked stunning in their dresses and was glowing with fit, healthy smiles. That's why I am questioning two pieces in the New York Times mentioning the weight of the actresses in attendance.

In the piece, A Rounder Golden Globes, writer Andy Port asks, "What do Jennifer Aniston, Kate Hudson and Courteney Cox have in common." I'm thinking it's their fabulous smiles, upper body strength, and legs for days. Nope. It seems that they're rounding out: "Instead of a Barbie-doll circumference, there was suddenly, amazingly, a womanly roundness to their frames. More Marilyn than Twiggy, that’s for sure."

To find out where the NYT's writer thought the ladies looked biggest,

.

In the piece, Port writes that if you focus on the upper body of the actresses, you'll better notice their fuller bodies. And while I think Port is celebrating their "new bodies" by pointing out their "sexier curves," I don't see the same thing he does. When I think of Jen, Courteney, or Kate, curvy doesn't really come to mind, nor does a "Barbie-doll circumference." In my mind, these ladies have always been extremely fit and svelte, not like Twiggy or Marilyn for that matter. And certainly in the last few years they've all maintained healthy weights. Port's observations just seem to be a bit of a stretch.

Further proof that the NYT has gone a little off-center in its Golden Globe coverage is Cathryn Horn's comments towards Mad Men's Christina Hendricks — an actress known and praised for her voluptuous curves: "Not pretty Christina Hendricks in Christian Siriano’s exploding ruffle dress." (As one stylist said, "You don’t put a big girl in a big dress. That’s rule number one.")"

I understand that part of the job of a fashion writer is to make critical judgments about style, but to me this quote is a sugarcoated way of saying, "Fat girls don't belong in high fashion." And in my opinion, Christina isn't even "big." Buxom for sure, but not big.

Perhaps why I'm most confused by the pieces is that they single out women known for having active lifestyles and healthy weights. I'm most worried at the message these articles send to the public — if healthy, uber-fit celebs fall into the same category as Marilyn Monroe, what does that say to the rest of us?

Image Source: Getty
Around The Web
Join The Conversation
katialoves katialoves 5 years
maybe kate hudson already had her boobjob here?
doogirl doogirl 6 years
Ditto what everyone else is saying! These bloggers need to have their eyes checked, none of these ladies are round or fat, they are all too skinny, even the girl from Mad Men. She's got a great pair of knockers, but she's plenty skinny!
MandeeLei MandeeLei 6 years
I want to clarify that I do not think anyone really "bashed" these ladies by saying they had sexier curves..that to me is a compliment. What I want to know is why are we writing articles about it? I mean is that all we have to talk about?
MandeeLei MandeeLei 6 years
I just don't understand why this is the focus of so many things nowadays. It's one or the other, thin or thick, fat or skinny. All three of those women above have COMPLETELY different bodies and also have figures nothing like Marilyn Monroe's. I just wonder...when will people finally be tired of talking about women's size and weight?! Who cares?! They all looked fabulous in their own individual way.
Silvers567 Silvers567 6 years
I agree with many here. The NYT is using the word curvy for what it really means - sexy curves not rolls. Many people use curvy as an euphemism to fat. They are curvier, just like Marylin, who was also toned and not a size 12 for these days, but more like a 4. And Christina is a big girl. she is not fat, but she is tall, and has very big breasts, and wide hips. All of this adds to volume, even if it is in all the right places. And yes, you need to out someone very small in that dress for it to work. All these girls are sexy in their own way, and the NYT is not debating that.
Spectra Spectra 6 years
Marilyn was not exactly "fat", but Twiggy was pretty emaciated-looking. I'd rather look like Marilyn over Twiggy any day and I'm glad the celebs are looking like her. No one wants to see clothes hangers parading around in dresses.
brielleblonde brielleblonde 6 years
just found a picture of cathy horyn: http://www.observer.com/files/full/cathyhoryn.jpg lol, she should not be one to talk. i think christina hendrick looks fab!
zeze zeze 6 years
Courtney Cox looks a hundred times better these days then she did in her skeletal Friends days. Check out her butt on "Cougar Town" in jeans...I'm less than half her age and I am way, way jealouse because she fills it out perfectly.
zeze zeze 6 years
Courtney Cox looks a hundred times better these days then she did in her skeletal Friends days.Check out her butt on "Cougar Town" in jeans...I'm less than half her age and I am way, way jealouse because she fills it out perfectly.
Drewsfan Drewsfan 6 years
They all look incredible...better than ever, if you ask me. I gotta agree with you about Cathy Horyn, tlsgirl....maybe she should pay a visit to Jen, Courtney, or Kate's trainer. (Not to mention stylist...working in the fashion industry, you think you'd at least TRY to be fashionable! You're gracing the net alongside Anna Wintour and beautiful models for heaven's sake!) I'd LOVE to see a pic of Andy Port. I looked all over and couldn't even find a little one. Bet there's a reason for that, she's probably as fug as they come!
katyharper katyharper 6 years
Y'all know that the New York Times never lets the facts get in the way of their reporting.
xtinabeena xtinabeena 6 years
omg those women (courtney, jennifer, and kate) are NOT 'portly' by any means!!! wtf is this article trying to say? they are still SUPER thin! i don't notice much if any filling out.
clearskies clearskies 6 years
New York Times is notorious for writing without thinking.
simplyjewels simplyjewels 6 years
As a fan of Marilyn Monroe the writer of the NYT article is ridiculous!! I have never seen this women look better and more beautiful. It was nice to see the curves which I think makes all us more confident in our own body types regardless of how big or small we think we are!!
KrisB KrisB 6 years
That was a sexist and very irresponsible article. It's ridiculous that in 2010 a supposed well respected newspaper would print such garbage. These women look fantastic just the way they are.
laellavita laellavita 6 years
monroe was a size 12, but like a few other people said, that's a lot smaller than a size 12 these days. go to h&m where they have european sizing and are generally cut smaller -- that's the scale designers used back in marilyn's day. it's even in "pretty woman" when the saleslady who actually helps julia roberts looks her up and down and goes, you're a size six? when there is no way that julia roberts is anything bigger than a 2 in that movie. but aside from all that, i think kate, jennifer, and courtney are still as slim as ever -- and they look SO much better than rose byrne who showed up to that awards show looking awful and haggard.
Foy Vance "Coco" Music Video
Courteney Cox and Johnny McDaid Kissing April 2016
Kim Kardashian Hangs Out With Courteney Cox 2016
High-Protein Meat-Free Foods Recommended by Nutritionist
How to Add More Probiotic Foods to Your Diet
Dating Advice You Learned From Friends (Video)
Low-Sugar Smoothies

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Fitness
X