NYT Distorts Image Of Christina Hendricks, Calls Her "Big"

She was hot and sexy as ever, well she’s like a Barbie with her dress. | ffxi gil

The media??!? Falsehoods?!? Never.. it doesn't surprise me one bit that they do everything they can for controversy.

I love her! She wonderful and beautiful and SO NOT Big...but this dress isn't one of her best.

I don't agree at all. If you think a rational calm discussion is going to effect any change in fashion industry or in the cattiness of writers who can't respect different body types then I have a feminist paying her nanny a slave wage I'd like to sell you. The feminists who pay their fellow women low wages to clean their homes and raise their kids, the fashion editors who pay lip service to real size woman and then run ads and models who are emaciated need to be hit with the truth , verbally as much as possible. It SHOULD be an attack. They have not listened and they have not changed. The "safe place to explore this" Oprahisms don't cut it in the real world. It was not hyperbole to mention the KKK btw, believe me (live in rural redneck California for awhile) it all comes the same, megalomaniac and self indulgent place. I have always thwarted it head on and continue to proudly.

Unfortunately, the image is not the only thing distorted here. Say what you want about weight; but to say that the NYT article, however mean and wrong it may be, was an attack against women and not just against Kate Hudson, Courtney Cox and Jennifer Aniston, is itself a distortion caused by the very same irrational and unfair prejudices of Misses Port and Horyn. These two women are no more attacking all women than Jen Carlson's attack of Port and Horyn is an attack against all women or even all thin women. This kind of screed is far too commonly employed without reservation by the "enlightened" who ditch honesty and fairness for the more dramatic and quick effects of hyperbole. We just saw this in Massachussetts when Martha Coakley painted Brown as the enemy of women.

When someone's position is so obviously wrong, it doesn't need to be exaggerated. It does not make a wrong more obviously wrong. It does however lessen the credibility of the critic. It makes one wonder whether the moral observer arrived at the right position rationally and fairly, or whether rationality and fairness had nothing to do with it and it was just pure luck that the observer got it right this time and that next time the observer might get it wrong. One cannot feel too safe in the unreliability of luck.

But that's precisely my point. The "long honoured media tradition of critizing women who are trim with big boobs and hips", of critizing some women but not Sophia Loren, as you yourself pointed out, hardly qualifies as an attack against women. An attack on some women, by definition, is not an attack against all women. Ms. Carlson's failure (or perhaps willful disregard) of this distinction in order to make a point, does not really advance the conversation on weight.

Horyn and Port obviously have unreasonably cruel standards of beauty and seem unreasonable and cruel themselves. Carlson should have the upper hand in the debate without wrapping her arguments in such ridiculous hyperbole. By her own measure, she's attacking women by attacking silly women like Horyn and Port, unless of course one disagrees with the implication that women are silly. So unless one thinks that women are fat, Horyn and Port, while terribly wrong, do not deserve Carlson's accusation of genocide. It's just silly. Carlson herself was distorting her own story about the NYT distortion, of all things. Let's not pretend it isn't obvious that she's appealing emotionally to make her point. There's a lot to be said about society's obsession with weight but a lie no matter how effective emotionally, is just not a valid argument.

You have to fight back and attack. To NOT attack Montag, Horn, Hilton and Wintour while fighting media stereotyping of woman is like attacking whites supremacy but having pity for the KKK and giving them a free pass.

Everything you said is a powerful exposition of our culture's obsession with weight but it's a response for a different conversation we haven't had yet. You still fail to addresses the point that Carlson, in addressing the NYT distortion, is herself distorting the NYT - unless you just neglegted to add that misrepresenting opponents is justified in figthing them. Carlson's use of the genocide-connoting phrase "attack against women" has the very precise intention of sending warning sinals to her readers. The message is: "Stop thinking and let's attack back", very much like you equating my arguments to giving the "KKK" a free pass (so not cool by the way) which may explain your sympathies with Carlson's methods.

I focused on Carlson because I believe that the process we use to arrive at our positions is just as important, if not more important than our positions themselves. A fair and honest process is what gives us confidence that we will be evaluated fairly even as evidence and circumstances change. Here, Horyn and Port and Carlson, despite arriving at different positions all lack the discipline to view the issue rationally and honestly.

@Cheska: Hi, I should have been clearer. Horn would never have said that about Sophia Loren TODAY she would have said that about her during the height of her fame; Horn does not understand that body type. Since the late 90's, countless articles reflecting on the ever shrinking Rachel Zoe silhouette have stated that "Loren, monroe etc " would never get the job today. All the hourglass bombshells were very trim and quite fit!

My point is it's a sick mind f*** to society which holds women against the very thin pubescent standards in magazines.Sadly the word "curvy", is now a euphemism used to describe everyone from tall breast less models with not real discernible hip to waist ratio and plus size women who are very overweight to obese. There seems to be absolutely no willingness on the part of the a fashion industry to allow TRIM, healthy woman, at proportional weights, like Hendricks to exist in print without automatically assigning them to the "outsize" category. A category that hardly applies to Hendricks. Her chest is not out of proportion to the rest of her figure she just looks radiantly healthy and comfortable.

We can't have a discussion until the press stops the big subliminal messages of "let's not to make thin women who mostly helm fashion mags feel bad about not having buxom hourglass figures which 99% of their men (gay or straight) would through them under the bus for" and "don't ever get comfortable with who you are, keep spending money..."

How many times have fashion magazines merrily proclaimed they want to end the photoshoped skinny obsession and then a month later go back to using skeletal coke hags in padded rompers.

Very thin, uni-torsoed models and celebs can, only with photo shop, padding and doctored bogus measurements issued by PR firms, approximate that type of physical symmetry that an hourglass figure has.

Many fashionistas who write about voluptuous woman are extremely thin which has to stop. Buxom trim women can't take ANY MORE hits in the media until the press stops lying about what we look like. The dithering effect on women's self esteem may not amount to genocide but it is hugely damaging and, I feel, very, very serious.

(and *DOING* it with class I might add)

I would agree with you if we were talking about politics but this is about the long honoured media tradition of criticizing women who are trim with big boobs and hips who are making a name for themselves in entertainment (and doping it with class I might add). Horn would never have said that about Sophia Loren, though Sophia Loren was in actuality as full figured as CH at various points in her career. It is annoying to see women who are healthy simply bashed, even if you perceive it as simply a mild slight it affects the entire picture. Skin and bones Miranda Kerr with her retouched little boys behind and reed thin breastless torso, was called "Curvy" in The UK Sun this very day. Buxom trim woman can't take ANY hits in the media until the media stops making molehills into mountains.

Note that these woman-bashing, body-shape-obsessed, misogynistic articles were *written by women*. Men don't go on and on about "she's fat" the way other *women* do.

wow doesn't the NYTimes have standards anymore? It is really slipping by calling this actress "big"...

the old NYTimes would have used "corpulent" or perhaps "rubenesque."

I'm willing to believe this was an accident. I mean, it's quite possible that it wasn't, and I would hope that professional layout software wouldn't make it easy to make such mistakes, so don't get me wrong. But I know that when I've tried to crop and resize photos with my amateur software, sometimes I've failed to keep the aspect ratios right and had to go back and redo. If I were in a hurry I might miss my error. I think an apology is appropriate but I wouldn't sweat it much more than that.

Oh, and I agree, she's hot either way.

Women, unfortunately, are often the perpetrators of such blatant sexism... thinking that the only way to succeed in life is to be the center of men's attentions, they sit around and act jealous and stupid, not realizing that they are creating an oppressive standard of beauty for themselves and every other woman too. Ms. Hendricks looks amazing in her dress - I think she looks better than anyone I've seen on a runway in a long time. I think its ridiculous that the new standard of beauty is for women to starve themselves down until they look like men and then bitch about other women who still look like women. Ridiculous.

You are being very hypocritical here. You speak against other womens high beauty standards and their judgmental attitudes, but then you judge skinny women and say they look like men. Did it occur to you that there are women who are naturally thin? Judging someone for being thin is just as bad as judging someone for being fat. I'm naturally thin and I'm tired of hearing people say that "real women have curves" and that thin women "look like 13 year old boys." What do you think it's like to hear that i'm not a "real woman" because I was born thin?

Crystal: Agreed but far too many thin woman are called curvy and overweight women are called curvy, so where does that leave us who are at a TRIM weight and TRULY have big boobs and hips? These falsehoods contribute greatly to anorexia, bulimia and to the general dislike that women feel when judged against these fake standards by society. Even if they are at healthy, trim weights, women are not "ok" in the eyes of the media, if they were we would see more models and actresses who look it. Look what happens to this fantastic, unparalleled beauty; she is slagged as "big" and "too busty."

Sadly, many fashionistas who write about voluptuous woman are extremely thin which has to stop.

I'm not bashing thin women. Being thin is as healthy and beautiful as having an hourglass figure, but please, to the media, DON'T CALL A SKINNY WOMAN WITH SMALL BREASTS, NARROW HIPS AND/OR IMPLANTS "CURVY" OR "BUSTY" when it is CLEARLY the EXACT opposite.

Agreed. You would never hear anyone say, "You don't put a big man in a big suit..."

Ridiculous.

Why would they stretch out the picture like that?? Even the guy in the back looks warped.

The Times should issue an apology to each individual Hendricks breast, for making them look bad.

Jen Carlson you're a twit. It's clear that Cathy Horyn actually was calling Christina Hendricks *PRETTY*. The statement was an answer to "Who was wearing the game changing dress?" And it was a list of who wasn't wearing it: "Not Halle Berry...Not pretty Christina Hendricks." Christina Hendricks is great, but that dress does not do her justice; it makes her head look tiny.

She called her a big girl. That's an insult.

Calling a woman "big" really shouldn't be considered an insult. Whether they were intending to be insulting is another question.

Calling someone a "big girl" is an insult. It's belittling, mocking and rude. No one said it was just the big part.

zincink: breasts, natural ones, are a fabulous thing! I'm personally tired of reading about trustrafarian artists and writer who call themselves feminists. Russ Meyer did more for women's empowerment than Ariel Levy has.

I'm a very devoted fan of Christina Hendricks who is VERY pretty. I'm a natural 38FF (I went up from an F after having a baby in July, I have an hourglass figure, I'm tall (almost 5'10) and I'd go Super Vixen on that two bit skank Horn if I could. Why are ANY THIN WOMEN writing about what a buxom hourglass figure should be wearing as it is? THEY have NO experience of THEIR own having large breasts or being tall and hour glassy. I'm also sick of women who are built like vollyball players or 13 year old boys claiming they have hourglass measurements. If we took the word of every PR agent, every woman in Hollywood and evrey model would be built with an hourglass when clearly the 0.7 hip to waist ratio and large natural breasts are VERY rare today.

The media needs to stop making molehills into mountains.

http://www.myspace.com/amandaandsuperamanda

http://www.mysun.co.uk/superamanda/blog/

what is with all the hype for women with large chests..mariah and now this one too..leave us alone!

"What are Bazzooms?"

"How old are you?

"12"

"Bazzooms are FEET"

I may be making a mistake sharing this here, but my bra is an F Cup.

It is extremely difficult to find a dress for evening that shows off my ... um...assets...without being trashy. (That's not my sole goal in dressing up -- I just want to look good for myself and for my husband. ) That means my entire upper body. Dresses that size are not usually cut for women who have a waist, or athletic arms, or what have you. So many are either sacks or hooker clusterfucks.

Hendricks has pulled off a gorgeous old Hollywood look here -- she looks fantastic!

True. If it's made for the boobs size then it's huge everywhere else too.

please post picture of your F cup-babies to prove your point. Thanks

Let me rub you behind your ears!

oh baby!

'You don’t put a big girl in a big dress.' Actually, you don't out a big girl in a small dress. Stylists are one of the dumbest creatures to crawl the earth.

Christina Hendricks IS PERFECT. *drools*

Both of them are.

Seriously--big girl? She is all right in all the right places.

And yet we are expected to pay for this content on the web.

Man Bat, Christina H and Velvet.......now THAT'S what I'm talkin' about.

Still...she could stand to lose a rib...

Jealousy! You can always tell the manless miserable ones.Little do they know that men like it when they can hold on and get the vibrate effect going.lol

Get over it chicks!People are too obsessed with being 90 ponds. Being bony is not sexy

You know, it's one thing to insult females and call yourself a "professional" but it's another thing to insult a straight-up gorgeous woman. Even if Cathy Horyn is a 10 on the scale, she is still a total crone.

I'll bet Rodger Sterling would still boink her on the 1000 thread count sheets of a hotel bed at lunch break in that dress.

In defense of a newspaper that I am increasingly disappointed in, Horyn was simply quoting the words of an anonymous "stylist." The full article discusses the lack of imagination or beauty of the fashions worn at the event, not that of the women wearing them. Hendricks is a fox but that dress wasn't great and even her smokin figure couldn't pull it off. I think it's the stylist that we should be angry with. And then the Times and Horyn for repeating nasty words. And then Gothamist for lacking the ability to ever give the whole story and misleading readers.

Why quote that stylist? Why bring the focus to her weight -- which appears to be perfectly healthy? A newspaper is supposed to present a balanced picture. The times is not doing it in this case -- especially when not giving us the name of that stylist, and who he or she may have dressed.

"Why bring the focus to her weight "

In context, it brought no focus to her weight. This is what it said, leaving out a few references to other women and their dresses:

"Where was that single, game-changing dress that people would talk about? 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.”)"

That's it. The only mention of her.

And do people really think that a newspaper writer chooses, let alone edits, the photo that goes with an article?

I think Gothamist/Gothamist readers are angry *because* Horyn quoted the anonymous source. It wasn't necessary and it didn't add anything to the conversation other than "she's a big girl and big girls shouldn't wear certain things". I think the biggest problem was that she didn't mention the size (or quote anyone who mentioned the size) of any of the other actresses whose dresses she disliked.

Add to that the distorted photo and I think it's fair to blame Horyn and the times for allowing something like that to be printed.

"And then Gothamist for lacking the ability to ever give the whole story and misleading readers."

Outrage 24/7 is good for you. Just read the headline, look at the picture, and start commenting.

Arthur, I will give you $25.50 for the New York Times.

This is the best offer you will get. Take it or leave it.

Please take it.

Actually....if you read the article there's a missing accent on the word "pretty." So Horn is actually calling her pretty but the dress unflattering. I agree it wasn't the best she's looked. Which means she's still gawgeous.

is the photo distorted in the print edition? not to cut the NYT too much slack, but a lotta newspapers skimp on the web QA. Consequently, they give the photo to some intern and the photo gets awkwardly resized. as for the commentary, who goes to the NYT for 'style' news anyway?

You are cutting them too much slack. No respectable website puts images straight from "routine processing" onto the site without some kind of editorial process.

Yowza. I'll be the meat in that red-head sandwich any day, but put the one on the left on the bottom. K'thx.

i dont watch madmen and never heard of her before.

shes is AOK in my book, those are a nice pair of gazumbas.

gazumbas? ha. nice one.

I have no idea why anyone can say they aren't crazy about the dress. It looks amazing in and of itself. Then you put her in it and it's jaw dropping. And then she starts MOVING in the dress? Forget it. Here's the video:

http://dappered.com/2010/01/christina-hendricks-golden-globe-cleavage-video/

NYT will soon be found next to the gum and mints on the supermarket checkout line

I'm not crazy about the dress either, but that's besides the point. Christina Hendricks has the right amount of size in all the right places.

Besides the fact that the NYT is wrong -- I mean, this girl's fucking beautiful -- they've stretched the entire image horizontally. I mean, if you're gonna fuck with an image, fuck with it properly & only affect your subject! Look @ the 2 shots -- the black girl holding the umbrella in back of her is stretched too (along w/everyone else in the photo!). So. To conclude:

1. Bad, catty, writing (by a fugly author)

2. Bad, 3rd rate "retouching" (by an incompetent "artist").

nerd vs. bimbo...some people never get past the old high school dynamics.

Christina Hendricks is a lovely vision of a woman and a very talented actress. The two authors of the NYT articles attempting to insult her and the other actresses (Aniston, Cox and Hudson) are of no consequence and probably don't eat enough. There are fewer people more vicious and bitter than those on starvation diets. A woman with some flesh on her bones is all kinds of sexy.

The only thing I agree with the Times about is that she shouldn't have been in a big dress. Not that she would look bad ever, even in a burlap sack, but in a small dress she would be incredible.

I don't know if I would have chosen that color for her but she is GORGEOUS, I can't believe anyone would call her "big". This article is exactly what's hat's wrong with our society today and the NYT is doing nothing but perpetuating that.

What a joke! Christina is beautiful. I want her body!

WRONG!

Far from the truth message= immoral

Cathy Horyn is FUGLY!

Nice skull! http://www.thisheartsonfire.com/images/CathyHoryn03.jpg

What an hypocritical and immoral bitch.

"I like fat girls. They're easy to f*ck."

-The Mr. Move

Uh, NYT, that's really low. The woman is gorgeous & has a beautiful rack. WTF is your problem? I've lost all respect for you, NYT.

I can't see past her boobs so I have no thoughts.

Note to all Gothamist reporters/bloggers. Put boobs in every animal rights post and we won't have to hear felix whine about Mr. Ed's job pulling carriages.

The New York Times has been distorting the truth since Giuliani was mayor. I lost respect for them decades ago.

seek the truth!

same here.

I hope they write her a public apology. Our society is really insane.

This is in one of those "News Papers" that my grandmother told me about? Where did you find one? I can think of two places-- in a museum or clogging the drain in a subway station.

Cathy Horyn and her mystery "stylist" are absolutely right - there's no way a full-figured girl could look good in a dress like that! Oh wait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtGybjFjOU

...Of course, Ms. Horyn probably doesn't get offered many diamonds.

Christina rocks! Although I hope I'm not the only one that thinks the left photo is hot - gotta love a good "fat morph".

(comment fail - didn't mean for it to go here - my bad.)

Who the hell is running the Times? Kate Moss??

She's beautiful and I wouldn't exactly call her 'big'. She has meat in all the right places.

Bring her to my chambers immediately for a 'debriefing'.

They also made a nasty comment about that Dexter guy wearing a hat, when actually he has cancer.

Ouch. Mean!

How odd considering that they ran "The Triumph of the Size 12s" about the success of plus-size model Crystal Renn last week.

that girl is so hot. sigh. You should not read or quote the NYT. its poorly written and not relevant to anything.

And they want to start charging me to read that crap?

What does Horyn look like? A frumpy never been married and dumped every Friday porker?

Like this:

http://www.ultrapdx.com/zero/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/cathy-horyn.jpg

It's soooo tempting to begin picking her apart, but I'm going to let this one one speak for itself. Also, unlike what she did to the enchantingly beautiful Christina Hendricks, I did not stretch this one out to make her look squat. She is just squat.

Neander Wintour

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/resources/2006/10/SP32-20061013-095201.jpg

She looks like Ally Sheedy after a bender.

So basically she looks like Ally Sheedy...

Is she Quentin Tarantino's sister?

I guess I got the "dumped every Friday" part right.

Definitely hot. What a petty, bitchy, move. Not cool, NYT.

Idiot. It's so easy for images to get distorted in web pages by not setting the proper width/height, it's unlikely it was intentional.

I would expect this from the Post, but I had some hope that NYT was a little more professional.

The self-described paper of record is a piece of trash; funny how it takes some pop culture reporting to open some eyes to the lack of integrity at the Times. Nothing more jealous than old gray lady. BTW she's hot.

i'll take the one on the left and the one on the right. jealousy is unattractive on a woman.

The dress looks like she stole it out of Barbie's closet, but really, she looks hot in either picture.