Posted on 08/12/2004 7:27:38 AM PDT by SJackson
Don't expect to see much of Elizabeth Edwards on the campaign trail this fall. Oh, she'll be campaigning alongside her husband, all right. But the TV cameras just might decide to miss her.
After introducing her husband at the Democratic convention in Boston, she has all but disappeared, which is curious given that she is arguably the best thing the Democratic ticket has going for it. An intelligent and accomplished professional woman who exudes genuine, down-to-earth homeliness and warmth, Elizabeth Edwards also earned the respect of traditional-minded Americans by courageously deciding to have two young children in mid-life after losing her eldest child in a car crash. A woman of quiet dignity, refinement, and grace, she is the perfect antidote to the arrogant condescension of the "opinionated" Theresa Heinz Kerry.
So why won't you see a lot of her on TV? Because America doesn't like heavy women. It hides them away where they won't be offensive. They are seen as unattractive and are endlessly analyzed by armchair psychologists as to why they would have allowed themselves to become repellant. Worse, they are treated as if they have committed some sin.
This is especially true of women who, like Elizabeth Edwards, were once thin. The women who were always heavy elicit the public's sympathy. "Maybe it's genetic," they think inwardly. But women who were once thin and attractive, like Elizabeth Edwards, but who dare to put on weight – even after suffering horrific personal tragedy like the loss of a child – are treated as if they have violated some sacred commandment: Thou shalt always look pleasing for thy menfolk. And by menfolk, we mean here not only Elizabeth Edwards's husband but all American men who have a right to look at a young candidate's wife and see something that pleases the eye, like Jackie Kennedy.
By now you have no doubt heard the endless political commentary about how handsome and vibrant John Edwards is and how he nicely complements the long-faced taciturnity of John Kerry. Even Kerry himself praised his good-looking vice-presidential candidate for having "great hair." But those same commentators are utterly silent on the looks of Elizabeth Edwards because to them, as to the rest of America, the fact that she is overweight – itself a pejorative implying extremism – means that she is unsightly.
For the longest time, America has been waging a holy war against women that dare to be fat. The American tabloids have for months shown us pictures of the "obese" actress Kirstie Alley. The pictures of her at 300 pounds are invariably contrasted with photos of how she looked when she was thin and pretty on TV's Cheers. She is a legitimate object of ridicule, depicted as a circus elephant, replete in tent-like clothes. The implication also is that she is possessed of some grave mental illness to have allowed herself to mushroom to such proportions.
Now, I do not deny that shedding extra pounds can make us healthier, improve the quality of our lives, and enhance the self-esteem of both men and women. But do we really want our daughters to be numskulls like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, who have perfect bodies but rotting brains?
Just think about the message that American girls get when large women are unjustly treated as repulsive. They learn that personality, education, virtue, and motherhood – pregnancy often causes women to put on and retain weight – counts for nothing in the eyes of men. Spending all your time in a gym burning off fat, rather than being idle in a library and reading a book, is the only way to get noticed.
EVEN THE American TV networks these days seem to hire only thin, beautiful women to read the news, and highly intelligent women like Greta Van Susteren feel pressured to undergo plastic surgery in order to get ratings on their TV shows. Indeed, you are more likely to see a space alien on your rooftop than a heavy-set woman on your TV screen.
This is also part of an ugly double standard. Weight is not an impediment to power and success among men. Just look at Michael Moore and Harvey Weinstein. But the only women who are allowed to be heavy in America are funny women, like Starr Jones.
Thinness may have become synonymous with beauty in America, but it is decimating the erotic life of marriage. In multiple sexual surveys, one of the biggest complaints that husbands voice about their wives is that they rarely initiate sex and are far too reserved in the bedroom. But can we really expect the American wife to be sexually adventurous when she is permanently self-conscious about her weight? It makes sense that women who feel unattractive will choose to hide under the covers.
Indeed, Dr. James Watson, the Nobel prize-winning geneticist who was jointly responsible for discovering the structure of DNA, maintained that plumper women were more likely to enjoy a better sex life than their thin counterparts. He told an audience at University College London that extra pounds had the biological effect of making a woman well rounded in character and better in bed. "Thinness is never associated with sexuality."
He explained that extra fat had the effect of boosting endorphins, the natural mood-enhancing chemical that is also linked to sexual desire. "Kate Moss is probably the most famous thin person in the world, and she's looking particularly sad. Who has ever heard of a happy supermodel?" Watson asked.
He also argued that leptin, which is produced in fat tissue, boosts the chemical MSH, which enhances sexual desire. "Your mood is controlled by endorphins, and you make more of these when you are fat; hence, nobody has ever drawn Santa Claus thin. Thin people are discontented."
And the obsessive American war on fat is also decimating the American family because women are afraid to "disfigure" their bodies with pregnancies and post-partum pounds.
Elizabeth Edwards didn't worry about all that, and she has two young beautiful children who treasure her, even if the superficial American media does not.
Fair enough. But I'm curious to know if you, and other like minded women on this site, would go out with a guy who was 5'6 and 135 lbs.
Kate Dillon is tall and she is proportionally an "apple" (not a pear). The weight is distributed more evenly, not mostly to her thighs, hips and bottom.
Most men are "apples" so every carrying extra weight, they can look OK. There are some pear shaped men and they don't look as good IMO.
The same weight to height ratio does not look as good on a "pear" shaped woman.
Tall "apple" women like Kate Dillon can look phenomenal heavier. Shorter and/or "pear" shaped women don't.
Alas, poor Elizabeth Edwards (like many women) is short and pear shaped. Even if she were to lose, say 50 pounds, she would not look as good as Dillon.
I think people should dress and look like the person that they are..Your true personality.....
I am constantly changing my look like "The Jackal" My hair is about mid length maybe right in the middle of my back I streak it called the Blond Brown Chunky look..I wear it a ton of different ways, up down braided under a hat or sometimes I wear a flirty Red hairpeace...
Different hats....My fetish is shoes I have over 100 pair of shoes everyone that knows me...Knows that my shoes reflect my personality...
In fact I think you can judge all women by the shoes they wear....
That's why no one notices you...It's called "Boring"
OH yeah I forgot... guys from the South usually don't mind a girl with some child bearin' hips *LOL* This is good because I think I have room for a litter.
I think people should dress and look like the person that they are..Your true personality.....
*** YES! I agree.
I would go out with a guy taller than me, which is almost everyone since I'm just about five feet tall *LOL*
I've seen a lot of claims that she put on a bunch of weight from the grief after her son was killed and from having the two babies so late in life.
Does anyone know if these actually were contibuting factors or was she perhaps packing on the pounds beforehand? The only pictures that I've seen of her were taken 'way back when' and recently, nothing in between.
I just had my picture taken and a friend of mine said that I looked big in it.
I reminded him that I just spent 7 months on steroids because I had lost my eyesight.
I had a choice between being blind or extra pounds. I made the choice to have sight.
Beware the wrath of the Viking Kitties. :=)
Really??? Oh well you had an excuse. BTW, I remember pithy little polls asking women if they're rather be pretty or smart, and most women were answering pretty.
That is incorrect -- you would be dead if your metabolism dropped that low, as just the basic operation of the brain requires more than 200 calories per day.
For people with completely non-functional thyroids, the metabolic levels are typically in the 1200-1400 calories per day range. Not coincidentally, this is the calorie intake level of people with perfectly normal thyroids who are on caloric restriction diets, and is generally recognized as the biological floor for weight maintenance in humans. Anything less than this and your weight WILL drop no matter how messed up your metabolism is.
In the worst case scenario, you would have to eat the same kind of diet that the caloric restriction folks do, which is mainly vegetables, lean poultry and fish, and a bit of nuts and cheese for fat.
HELLO, NURSE!!!
Now, you know women's weight varies as much as their moods. ;-) I think she still looks great in that pic.
Pretty sure makes life easier, but smart makes it worth living.
I rather be smart. Watching Jessica Simpson helps me keep focused hehe.
|
|
Is this why we don't see much of this anymore??? |
I wouldn't complain if I looked like Jessica Simpson, but she does have more air than brains.
I wouldn't complain either. It's better to be pretty and smart like Monica Crowley or Laura Ingraham.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
