Lindsey Vonn is hoping the Sports Illustrated cover jinx doesn’t cross international borders. America’s great Winter Olympic hope is featured on the front of SI’s Winter Olympic preview issue, which hit newsstands Wednesday.
Vonn’s semi-provocative pose has drawn the predictable ire from those who claim that it objectifies her. She’s an athlete, not a sex symbol, the chorus inevitably reminds us. They have a point in taking issue with SI; the magazine rarely features women athletes on the cover and its annual swimsuit issue has been a focus of protests for decades. But Vonn’s cover is different.
The pose at least resembles the tuck stance skiers like Vonn take when barreling down the hill. It’s exaggerated, of course, but not gratuitously so. It’s not as if SI put her in a bikini in a Whistler hot tub.
Also, this is Vonn’s moment. If she wins multiple golds in Vancouver, Vonn has the potential to become a major crossover star. She’d be like Michael Phelps, only with better looks and an actual personality. Landing on the SI cover is a good way for her to start the Vonn saturation campaign. It’s as important for her as it is the magazine.
The pose is suggestive, sure, but it’s not objectifying. The headline reads “America’s best woman skier ever”, for Jean-Claude’s sake! Why can’t she be both the best skier in the world and really, really attractive too? Tom Brady’s a great athlete and a handsome dude and I don’t hear people whine when he’s shirtless in GQ.
Most importantly, this cover is almost identical to the one that ran on SI’s Winter Olympic preview in 1992. That one featured a gentleman named A.J. Kitt and I’m pretty sure nobody was complaining about that one being too provocative
source: Let the Lindsey hype begin: Vonn is Sports Illustrated cover girl [yahoo sports]
As we all know, when someone is trying to be politically correct they use the word “big” instead of saying what they really mean – “fat”. Well this is exactly what the New York Times have decided to call Christina Hendricks and used a distorted image to go with the article.
In their fashion reports for the Golden Globes red carpet on Sunday, a writer decided to call the Mad Men actress “big” while using the image above on the left which leads you to believe that Hendricks does look bigger than she actually does. The photo has since been replaced with the real photo on the right.
Cathy Horyn, a writer for the NY Times, is quoted as saying “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.â€)”
Another writer for the NY Times, Andy Port (another woman), wrote that Kate Hudson, Jennifer Aniston and Courtney Cox have all “put on a little weight.” She then ads that they have put on sexier curves.
What I find interesting here is that both of these writers are women hating on other women, jealousy maybe? Not one of these actresses are fat, I wish this whole fat/skinny debate would just go away already.
source: NYT Distorts Image Of Christina Hendricks, Calls Her “Big” [Gothamist]
Dakota Fanning has done an interview with V Magazine in which she tells them that she is happy be be able to find into a size zero.
Dakota, who turns 16-years-old next month, says that as she is getting older she is able to get into a size zero without having them alter the dresses to suit her.
The 5’3″ actress said “Now that I’m getting older, I’m finally getting to the point where I can fit into those things.”
She also spoke out about her role in the upcoming movie, The Runaways, in which she stars alongside Kristen Stewart in a biopic about Joan Jett and Cherie Currie of the 70s rock bad The Runaways.
The pair share a girl-on-girl kiss, to which Dakota says “It’s passionate,they were just as close as two could get.’ And as for taking cocaine in the film she says ‘It’s actually crushed B vitamins. Kristen and I were, like, our hair is gonna grow a lot from these.”
I’m not even going to comment on Dakota Fanning being happy to be a size zero because it just shows what all young girls are thinking. As for her girl on girl kiss, this is probably they first I am not looking forward to seeing because she is way too young.
source: Dakota Fanning, ‘I’m Finally A Size Zero’ [Ocean Up]
Thailand’s government may still be miffed at Angelina Jolie for speaking out on behalf of impoverished boat people, but the actress has prompted soul-searching among some in the Southeast Asian country.
For a second day, Thai officials rebuked the globe-trotting leading lady for calling on the country to respect the rights of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority people fleeing nearby Myanmar’s military dictatorship.
“It was not her role to comment on the matter,” Thai Foreign Ministry spokesman Tharit Charungvat said Thursday. Jolie was in Thailand last week as a United Nations goodwill ambassador, touring a northern camp for other refugees from Myanmar.
Thai authorities have been accused of routinely abusing Rohingya refugees, including towing more than 1,000 out to open sea and leaving them to die in boats with no engines late last year. Some drifted to the shores of India and Indonesia weeks later, but survivors said hundreds others died. Thailand has denied any abuse, but says the boat people are economic migrants, not refugees.
Local newspapers seized on the controversy — but not all took the side of the government.
“Instead of blaming Jolie … why don’t we start talking about the root cause of the problem?” an editorial in the English-language The Nation asked, calling on the government to re-examine its policies based on “humanitarian principles.”
Thai academic Pavin Chachavalpongpun, writing in the Bangkok Post, even said that a “particular brand of Thai-ness has successfully impeded society’s responsibility to nurture human rights.”
Jolie — who has visited refugees in many hotspots including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Sudan — did not directly criticize Thailand’s actions. Her offending comment merely expressed hope through a U.N. statement that authorities would respect the rights of Rohingya and all refugees.
Still, her star power has helped highlight the long-overlooked plight of the Rohingya, a stateless minority who live mostly in Myanmar but are not recognized as citizens by its military rulers.
Myanmar’s consul-general to Hong Kong defended the junta’s policy this week by telling the South China Morning Post this that the Royingya are “ugly as ogres” whose “dark brown” skin is in contrast with the “fair and soft” ethnic Burmese majority.
Vonn’s semi-provocative pose has drawn the predictable ire from those who claim that it objectifies her. She’s an athlete, not a sex symbol, the chorus inevitably reminds us. They have a point in taking issue with SI; the magazine rarely features women athletes on the cover and its annual swimsuit issue has been a focus of protests for decades. But Vonn’s cover is different.
