Monday, July 25, 2005
Countdown to E-day
Exam day minus one. Am feeling this odd sense of calm -- perhaps because I've finally resigned myself to the inevitable, that I will not know anything when it comes time to take this three-day horror of an exam. Perhaps because after two months of stressing out about it (but not, apparently, stressing enough to actually motivate myself to learn anything), my brain is tired. In any case, for better or for worse I will go in tomorrow, write some semblance of three essays and a three-hour performance test, do the same thing all over again on Thursday, and fill out 200 Scantron bubbles sometime in between. Good luck, all you Bar takers everywhere.
Exam day minus one. Am feeling this odd sense of calm -- perhaps because I've finally resigned myself to the inevitable, that I will not know anything when it comes time to take this three-day horror of an exam. Perhaps because after two months of stressing out about it (but not, apparently, stressing enough to actually motivate myself to learn anything), my brain is tired. In any case, for better or for worse I will go in tomorrow, write some semblance of three essays and a three-hour performance test, do the same thing all over again on Thursday, and fill out 200 Scantron bubbles sometime in between. Good luck, all you Bar takers everywhere.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Glamour gripe
The title of the Editor's Note for the August 2005 issue of Glamour is (I was at the bookstore shopping for pens and flashcards -- it was just sitting there -- it was fate -- honest!) "Hollywood Weights: How Low Can They Go, Anyway?" In it, the editor-in-chief bemoans the ever-increasing slimness (or rather gauntness) of Hollywood starlets.
"Now, some women are born slim," she writes, "and on them, slender somehow always looks natural .... But striving to be stick-skinny when you're genetically not poses real health risks to your bones, heart and fertility -- and takes a toll on your cheeks, skin and proportions as well. ... These days the pressure is intense on young actresses ... to dip from healthy three-digit weights to what look like two. But why squander your natural gorgeousness in a crazy race to take up less space?"
Hear, hear. But not quite see, see. A quick glance through the magazine reveals the following stats. Foregive the obsessiveness, but it got me a bit riled up:
-- Cover: gorgeous, incredibly slender (but talented) actress superstar-type
-- Pages with ads featuring rail-thin female models (this tally and the ones below are not counting photos where you only see faces and not the bodies below them): pp. 4-6, 10, 16, 17, 22, 39, 43, 47, 54, 63, 65, 77, 80, 85, 95, 99, 101, 103, 109, 117, 119, 121, 124, 143, 144, 204, 213, 214, 216, back cover. Total = 32.
-- Pages with stories or features by magazine staff about (super)models: pp. 23, 24, 56, 66. Total = 4.
-- Pages with stories or features by magazine staff about itty bitty actresses and other famous folk just as thin as the models: pp. 26, 33, 35, 40, 55, 57, 64, 70, 106, 108, 111, 115, 118, 125, 131, 135, 138, 139, 140, 145, 152, 154-57, 173, 220. Counting front cover, total = 28.
-- Pages with magazine-compiled photos or photo shoots featuring still more miniscule models: pp. 34, 50, 60, 62, 73, 74, 76, 93, 94, 115, 122, 146-50, 153, 164-172, 174-183, 188, 191, 198, 205, 206. Total = 41.
-- Pages (both ads and features) showing "real" people's bodies, or those of models chosen specifically to look like "real" people: pp. 26, 49, 52, 58, 60, 62, 71, 78 (of note: photo of the very slender ed-in-chief herself), 125, 126, 141 (ad for plus-size store), 142, 203, 209, 222. Total = 15.
-- Pages on which those real people were at least me-size (read: average): pp. 26, 52, 58, 71, 125 (but only with padding), 126, 141, 142, 222 (but 2 of the 3 were "don't copy this look" admonitions). Total = 9.
-- Pages with stories about how being underweight is bad for your appearance, oh and your health too: p. 20. Total = 1.
-- Pages with stories about how being overweight is bad for your health: pp. 84, 86, 90; and makes people treat you more rudely while shopping: p. 125. Total = 4.
Lately I've found myself becoming quite concerned with my weight and appearance -- more than typical for me. Perhaps it's not entirely surprising why.
The title of the Editor's Note for the August 2005 issue of Glamour is (I was at the bookstore shopping for pens and flashcards -- it was just sitting there -- it was fate -- honest!) "Hollywood Weights: How Low Can They Go, Anyway?" In it, the editor-in-chief bemoans the ever-increasing slimness (or rather gauntness) of Hollywood starlets.
"Now, some women are born slim," she writes, "and on them, slender somehow always looks natural .... But striving to be stick-skinny when you're genetically not poses real health risks to your bones, heart and fertility -- and takes a toll on your cheeks, skin and proportions as well. ... These days the pressure is intense on young actresses ... to dip from healthy three-digit weights to what look like two. But why squander your natural gorgeousness in a crazy race to take up less space?"
Hear, hear. But not quite see, see. A quick glance through the magazine reveals the following stats. Foregive the obsessiveness, but it got me a bit riled up:
-- Cover: gorgeous, incredibly slender (but talented) actress superstar-type
-- Pages with ads featuring rail-thin female models (this tally and the ones below are not counting photos where you only see faces and not the bodies below them): pp. 4-6, 10, 16, 17, 22, 39, 43, 47, 54, 63, 65, 77, 80, 85, 95, 99, 101, 103, 109, 117, 119, 121, 124, 143, 144, 204, 213, 214, 216, back cover. Total = 32.
-- Pages with stories or features by magazine staff about (super)models: pp. 23, 24, 56, 66. Total = 4.
-- Pages with stories or features by magazine staff about itty bitty actresses and other famous folk just as thin as the models: pp. 26, 33, 35, 40, 55, 57, 64, 70, 106, 108, 111, 115, 118, 125, 131, 135, 138, 139, 140, 145, 152, 154-57, 173, 220. Counting front cover, total = 28.
-- Pages with magazine-compiled photos or photo shoots featuring still more miniscule models: pp. 34, 50, 60, 62, 73, 74, 76, 93, 94, 115, 122, 146-50, 153, 164-172, 174-183, 188, 191, 198, 205, 206. Total = 41.
-- Pages (both ads and features) showing "real" people's bodies, or those of models chosen specifically to look like "real" people: pp. 26, 49, 52, 58, 60, 62, 71, 78 (of note: photo of the very slender ed-in-chief herself), 125, 126, 141 (ad for plus-size store), 142, 203, 209, 222. Total = 15.
-- Pages on which those real people were at least me-size (read: average): pp. 26, 52, 58, 71, 125 (but only with padding), 126, 141, 142, 222 (but 2 of the 3 were "don't copy this look" admonitions). Total = 9.
-- Pages with stories about how being underweight is bad for your appearance, oh and your health too: p. 20. Total = 1.
-- Pages with stories about how being overweight is bad for your health: pp. 84, 86, 90; and makes people treat you more rudely while shopping: p. 125. Total = 4.
Lately I've found myself becoming quite concerned with my weight and appearance -- more than typical for me. Perhaps it's not entirely surprising why.
Remiss
Apologies for my absence and for my neglect of recent birthdays. Happy birthday, a wee bit late, to R.A., L.R., S.W., and J_G! Have been frantically not-studying for the CA bar exam. Which requires me to learn 14 subjects. None of which I have yet mastered. Despite the impending doom. Oh dear -- off to study some more. Y'all might not be hearing from me for a while...
Apologies for my absence and for my neglect of recent birthdays. Happy birthday, a wee bit late, to R.A., L.R., S.W., and J_G! Have been frantically not-studying for the CA bar exam. Which requires me to learn 14 subjects. None of which I have yet mastered. Despite the impending doom. Oh dear -- off to study some more. Y'all might not be hearing from me for a while...
