The New York Times Calls Christina Hendricks ‘A Big Girl’
January 20, 2010 in Christina Hendricks by Versus
That’s right, this did happen. Here’s the exact quote, referring to the dress Christina wore at the Golden Globes:
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.”)
… says NY Times journalist Cathy Horyn, the author of the article Further reflections of a Golden “I”
Even more, the article was accompanied by a distorted image which featured (intentionally or accidentally) a much wider Christina Hendricks – see image below:
Note: The left image was originally posted by NY Times, the right one is the original.
After readers pointed out the photoshopped image, NY times updated the post, saying:
“The photo was slightly distorted inadvertently due to an error during routine processing.”
So perfectly-proportioned, clearly-at-a-healthy-weight Christina is a “big girl”. Not even a “curvy / voluptuous girl”, which has positive connotations, she’s big, people.
Thank you, NY Times, for that amazing piece of information.
all i can say is …idiots. they are probably just jealous women saying that. she is not ‘big’ i even said in my last post on her that she didnt look much wider than christina aguilera at all…and she is TEENY TINY
Hey, So for everyone reading this the full quote is.
“Who wore the single game-changing frock that people will be talking about for years to come? Not pretty Christina Hendricks…
Just to clear that up, she did say she was big though which is totally distorted because Christina hendricks is a babe!
Actually, Cathy Horyn (therefore the New York Times) doesn’t say Hendricks is big; she parenthetically quotes a stylist who did. With the accompanying picture, it’s pretty clear to me she’s referring to her breasts (which to be fair, are big). Come on ladies, check your facts. Let’s not go looking for haters.
I think she quotes the rule and the stylist she quotes probably didn’t refer to Christina
meh i didnt need to check any facts! i just read what was posted here! thats great if they didnt mean it in a mean way. i was just going off what i read here and i was saying that anyone who thinks this is big is an idiot. why are people commenting on what i wrote when i was just defending Christina because what was posted was ’so and so calls Christina a ‘big’ girl’…geez! i didnt say it! lol! i was merely responding!
She still uses it, if she didn’t agree she wouldn’t have used the quote.
Curvy and big are not the same thing, though they are often used in the same context.
Sticks and stones.
what a crock of sh*t !! that girl isn’t big !!! she only has big boobs !! different …
totally agree!!
I CAN NOT BELIEVE THIS.
Do they understand that such a comment will now affect size 8 girls who look up to christina for being proud of their curves?
Why make Christina’s weight an issue?
They really need to appologise.
Yes I alternately love and hate my body depending on what the NY Times and other media outlets say.
LOL.
sad to say but i actually do =o( i wish i didnt! well…if i have a bf etc that likes my body then that can override the media…but if i have a skinny loving bf…who is not affectionate…and then you get people calling VS models ‘curvy’ then yeah. that messes with my head. and my size 2-4,24 inch waist, 36 inch hips become HUGE to me
You also clearly don’t have body issues. Girl with body images, as sad as it is, do. And someone writing say….a piece on water rights issues shouldn’t necessarily be aware of the way girls with body issues react, but someone writing fashion articles should.
i think her body type (the “big” bust size and distinct waist) is misleading for some people who obviously don’t know what they are talking about. look at her slim arms and stomach –also in other pictures. ‘big girl’ must not be an insult by definition, but in this case it is and also a very inappropriate description of her body!
They basically insulted a 10+ gorgeous woman. Like I am not even into curvy girls, but Christina is beautiful in any book. I can’t believe how they would describe her as “not pretty” and “big girl”, big girl is clearly offensive.
I wouldn’t expect this from the NYT…
how is this photo distorted and other photos not, someone is doing a horrible job lying.
at the least they should issue an apology, jerks.
Christians work is fierce! I loved him on Project Catwalk, if anyone knows how to dress a woman it him. Plus who wouldnt kill for that tiny waist and killer cleavage!?! Im alot smaller than her and I had major figure envy she looks womanly and beautiful not fat at all!
The dress is doing its job brilliantly. The journalist is a jealous fool and the paper are awful at photoshop- look at the background- the womans legs are crazyily far apart!
I agree. I have really small boobs and am not very big and I love this figure! She looks great!
More like tall, small with gimungous breasts…
This is crazy! In a world of anorexia and obesity Christina represents a healthy, beautiful, womanly ideal. Lazy and vindictive journalism at its worst.
Well said! xxx
they must mean big breast cuz this woman is fierce! she has a nice body and i love her curves. very classy!!!
Well i think that dress MIGHT look better on less-curvy women, so i can see their point, as in it’s not always the best idea to add volume to an already very curvy body, but i too find it idiotic their choice of word was “big”. (That dress wouldn’t look great on big girls etiher though, i think.) But then again, the top is very slim and i think her hips might be slightly slimmer than her upper body, so the may even balance the proportions some. I’m not a fan of the dress, and i don’t think the color is right for Christina, but she certainly doesn’t look big in any way.
*either *the RUFFLES may balance..
i kind of disagree. the dress is great on her and would look overwhelm a small girl. some tiny actresses would be swallowed up in it. she is wearing the dress, not the other way around.
people dont dig the ruffles but they aren’t all over the place like some 80s prom dress – they accent her perfect hips – look at the curve on the opposite side of the ruffle. Damn! i think she’s just perfect, one of the most gorgeous women ever. she makes me almost want to bat for the other team.
i agree. i think it looks great on a tall and curvaceous girl like christina. a slimmer girl would just be drowned by the dress. lol. the ruffle balance her body nicely. granted, she needs more support on her boobs but other than that, she’s gorgeous!! i saw that pic and went ‘wow’ she’s major major hot and classy too.
So lame. I think that dress fits her perfectly. I dont think being called big is the problem ( even thoug I would get insulted because of that), but they said it very insulting way and also called her “not pretty”. NOT PRETTY?!? That woman is gorgeous no matter what she is wearing! Of course she is not one of those tiny celebrities but in the article they are practically saying she is fat, or at least that is the impression I get. Which she is not.
oh yea i forgot the pretty part, what was that about, weird weird.
I don’t think they are saying that Christina is “not pretty”. The sentence sounds more like it’s protesting against putting ‘pretty Christina’ in an unflattering dress. ‘Pretty’ is an adjective for Christina, so if it’s taken out, the sentence reads, “Not Christina in Christian Siriano’s exploding ruffle dress!” Even with that distorted picture, Christina is still insanely gorgeous, only a blind person would say that she’s not pretty!
Here’s a thought, try reading the actual article. This one seems to have distorted the facts of the first in favor of making waves.
Distorted? So that is why I posted a link to the original article, to distort facts, I guess.
And I made no reference to the “not pretty” part.
That also might be. I am not native English speaker so things written like this can sometimes confuse me. Thanks!
There’s no excuse for the photo, but the point is well-taken. The dress was not good for her, in color or in cut. Let her figure show a little bit more.
As far as calling her “big”–it’s not an inaccurate description in comparing her to other celebs, and it doesn’t have to be negative. A friend of mine was looking at pics of her and exclaimed, “That’s a whole lotta woman!” The tone was definitely admiring, and expressive of how a lot of Hendricks’ fans feel. We love her because she is “big,” in a way that is beyond physical size. She fills out not just her dresses, but a persona that is uber-feminine, archetypal, almost.
And this dress fails, in my mind, for the reason that it doesn’t let her be that. It constructs an artificial (and less feminine) figure that overlays her natural one.
A lot of men I know sometimes use the word big to describe a woman who is big breasted. It’s not saying “fat” or “too big,” it’s just saying well endowed. Perhaps that’s what they meant? Because she does have huge breasts. By the way, she is so gorgeous.
Considering they used the distorted pic to go with the comment, and the distorted pic makes her look bigger(and fatter) over all, like in her arms, waist, and hips, I’d say they weren’t using “big girl” in an admiring way.
They are journalists, not some random guy being asked to describe her. I would hope, as journalists, that they could come up with a word to accurately describe what they mean.
if she is not “big” then this dress certainly makes her look “big”….
This is so ridiculous, uncalled for and mean. How can you print something so rude? She’s not fat, not big, she’s literally just a voluptuous girl. WHAT THE HECK IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE? And ok, can I say again, her breasts look A-M-A-Z-I-N-G in this dress.
I’d concur that her breasts look amazing in this dress (when don’t they?). But her hips?
Considering the same paper printed the following about Michael C. Hall’s (Dexter) appearance at the Golden Globes, who is currently being treated for cancer, the Hendricks incident isn’t surprising:
“Is Michael C. Hall playing Bob Marley in an upcoming movie? Don’t get the hat or what he is hiding under it.”
You would think that “the paper of record” would do a little more research.
That paper of record has been a joke for the last decade. Try looking at their national coverage. I can’t believe people pay for that trash.
hahahaha you are so right. i think it’s just a bunch of foodies and yuppies coming back for more mark bittman recipes and pretentious articles on “green disputes” (i.e. couples whose only problems are the fact that their respective spouses aren’t environmentally conscious enough)…*vomit*
that paper is so pretentious and the writing is so needlessly (embarrassingly) flowery.
Hear, hear!
Oh man, I wanted to mention that. That was so terrible.
How could they mess up so badly TWICE from just one award show? They should just stop reporting on style or something…
That was in the same article? Good journalism. How hard is it to do a quick Google search to find out he has cancer? Bloody morons.
Hendrick’s is not big. She has big boobs and she looked gorgeous! I’d love to be as sexy as her.
O F*** them!! who cares? And sorry, what’s rule#2 put a big girl in a small dress? pffff , yeah and that statement most surely came from stylist of the year. These guys moke at journalist profession
I don’t see the offense. She is big. Not in a fat, unhealthy, overweight kind of big, but big. You can say voluptuous if you want, but your pretty much saying the same thing as big just in a nicer way. She’s pretty but I just don’t like the color of the dress.
word. that’s pretty much everything that i was going to post.
I’d like to hear a little bit more about her acting abilities and less about her body and freak-boobs. Not on this website, obviously, because its about discussing celebrity bodies. But on any discussion board all I ever heard is “Christian Hendricks has big tits blah blah blah”.
I would feel bad for her, but that is how she got her job on that show in the first place.
To me, Hendricks’ acting is what makes her body so attractive. Especially in the first season of Mad Men, Holloway ruled that office, stalking around like a tiger, totally at home in the corporate jungle. She was powerful and she knew it, and her femininity was an essential component of that. Then, as she developed and we saw more of the complexity of her character and its insecurities, Hendricks did a great job of developing Holloway as a person.
I have seen a number of people say that Hendricks’ body isn’t that great, that it’s normal or common, and I think it’s true to some extent. But what makes Hendricks special is how well she sells what she has, the confidence and strength to stand out with what had become a really atypical body for a sex symbol. Partly, it was the writing and setting of the series, but partly it was Hendricks’ willingness to be out there and flaunt her assets.
And in so doing she has given all those women with similarly “normal” bodies a person to rally around. Having known so many of these women with body insecurities who just can’t see how beautiful they are, I couldn’t be more happy.
When I hear “big girl” I always feel it’s a euphemism for a girl with weight problems who sits somewhere in the 200 lb range.
Personally, I thought that Christina looked gorgeous in that stress. Like, amazing.
I’m not surprised to see that a woman was the author of that comment – I feel that women are far more critical of women than men are. In fact, the only thing BIG there that men would think about are her boobies.
good god! everything about her photo is ‘pretty!’ i think the dress looks fantastic (and even if it would not be your absolute first choice for her, she can’t wear the same dress all the time – gives a little variety to her wardrobe). even if they wanted to criticize it, which would simply be a matter of a opinion and should not be stated as fact, they should have not said ‘unpretty’ and ‘big.’ even assuming had had the best of intentions (‘not pretty’ referring to the dress not being very nice on her and ‘big’ meaning ‘larger than life – as in big personality…and huge chest’), they could have chosen better words. and i still think their general perception would have been wrong – it only serves to highlight her figure beautifully, and she is not ‘big’ (just in one specific, and good, area – the chest) and this word is simply insulting, no matter how you slice it and its use is inexcusable. this isn’t live tv, they had time to search for a better one…such as ‘well endowed.’ the distortion of the photo is a disgrace and it blows my mind that they even tried that.
this just validates ideas i already had about the fashion industry, not men, being leading force behind weight issues. no man would look at that and see ‘big’ or ‘unpretty’ they would see beautiful curves, giant breasts, full lips, and a gorgeous face, skin and hair. even if she was not their type – because they all like different things – they could understand her appeal. however, stylists only see one type – stick thin. and will not accept anything else as attractive. being voluptuous is her ‘thing’ and even if its not yours, i think we can all see she is showcasing what makes her unique and beautiful.
I’m surprised that there aren’t more people in this thread agreeing with the times. (Before I get jumped, don’t worry, I disagree completely and think it’s horrid that a newspaper would actually print that.)
My point to be made is simply that I’ve been perusing these boards for a while now and have seen much smaller girls than Christina been called “fat cows.”
Is it different simply because a newspaper said it? What makes it okay for someone to call Jessica Simpson or Hilary Duff means things on these boards and not in a newspaper? Just because they can’t see it?
Not to mention, I’ve seen people criticize things about girls half Christina’s size.
I just find that interesting . . .
Different subgroups of readers comments on different articles.
Articles featuring anorexic-chic women like Victoria Beckam – you get all the girls commenting on the fact that she looks perfectly okay weight wise, not skinny at all. I rarely comment in those, and I assume other don’t either, the atmosphere is so….distorted.
On articles featuring more voluptuous women, you get the curvy-apologists (it’s sad that we need arguments to like anything that is non-skinny, but such is life).
The subgroups don’t cross paths much. That’s why it seems the commentators have a schizoid personality
.
I’d say that I’m unusually impressed or envious of very skinny women, but I can’t deny that Hendricks is gorgeous and even straight girls can kind of become in awe of those breasts. Obviously my body image distortion isn’t so bad since this is the case, but I honestly do believe that Hendricks isn’t getting a lot of negative comments because she is just that beautiful.
no one is happy wit anyone, your either too skinny or too fat
or you have a good body but a big nose ect ect.
i see ALL kinda of body types and faces being ridiculed on this site alone,
I think people should just be happy what they got and not worry bout
what others have to say cuz at the end of the day there will always be someone who thinks you look fabulous and someone who thinks you look like a trainwreck,!
I’m shocked and disgusted. Christina Hendricks is a gorgeous, sexy, amazing woman with an amazing body, someone I admire for not downplaying her curves. She has such a great body. She is not “big”. In no sense is she “big”.
She looked amazing at the Golden Globes, I love the dress and the way her figure. Her hair and skin were beautiful as always. WHY? Why say things like that? When you call a perfectly healthy and gorgeous woman “big”, what kind of message does it send to young girls about their OWN bodies?
Sure, in a twisted world where Victoria Beckham’s is considered attractive and healthy, Christina may be seen as “big”. But that’s not the kind of standard we should be setting for celebrities. Not all of us can look like Gisele.
I just don’t get it.
not all of us can look like gisele – or want to! i’d take christna’s body over gisele’s anyday. i agree that the standard is so skewed!
well not all of girls will have big breasts like christina so it goes both ways.
totally agree.
I don’t find “big” to be negative. But she looked amazing
I agree, I don’t really see how it is negative… But we could be wrong, I guess? And I agree she looked amazing either way, just gorgeous.
Oh, that’s just silly. Whoever wrote that is probably bitter about their lack of awesome cleavage. Christina looks gorgeous, I think she was one of the best dressed at the Golden Globes, actually. She just looked stunning. As tingle said, a dress like that would overwhelm a tiny girl. I actually even like the ruffles.
she is a big girl, get over it.
Even if she was the size on the left (larger photoshopped pic) she still wouldn’t be “big” she’d just be more of a voluptuous goddess~
SORRY PEOPLE THEY MEANT BIG AS IN LARD A** AND I’M ABSOLUTELY FUMING!!!!! BUT HAD THIS BEEN A PRE-PUBESCENT BOY LOOKING CELEB AND THEY HAVE CALLED HER GAUNT, ALARMINGLY THIN OR *GASPS* ANOREXIC OHHHH THE OUTRAGE HOW COULD THEY BLAH BLAH BLAH. Christina Hendricks is not big in any way shape or form. Is she voluptuous? YES BUT BIG NEVER. And as far as distorting the image accidentally PUHHLEASE. I don’t buy one bit the same way women on the covers of magazines are retouched to look thinner, smoother etc. plus size models are often retouched to look bigger. I’m not calling her plus size I’m just trying to show the two extremes. Plus size top model Crytal Renn was once quoted saying that one time her image was distorted so much it mad her look like a size 20 when she is a size 12 or 14. Lara Stone another top model who is a size 4 is considered “curvy”. Gemma Ward gains a couple of pounds and Bryan Boy?! says that she would make a terrific PLUS SIZE MODEL when she looks like she ’s a size 6 or 8 AT THE MOST. When will the Fashion Industry ever learn or stop being so narrow minded. Or the whole entertainment industry at that. I guess when god forbid another model dies like Elisel or Luisel Ramos who were SISTERS AND DIED WITHIN A YEAR OF EACH OTHER! This is why girls are doubled over their toilets vomiting or starving themselves because of the medias and America’s obsession with thinness instead of being obsessed with being healthy and how by eating right and living an active lifestyle can lead to being thin HOWEVER you will be at your right weight for your height and will have a normal BMI. I’m so DISGUSTED!!
*made*
i wonder, since when women who happen to be thin are always called pre-pubescent boy looking bodies and whatnot? i don’t care for women who are starving themselves but there are women who are thin yet they look like boys? as for america, it has so many health issues they need to work out.
lol they shouldn’t have distorted it..mean
her boobs stick out too much in that dress anyway
I actually use the expression ‘big girl’ as a positive term, more like this site calls it curvy instead of skinny. Big to me means healthy, strong, well-built. I’m not quite sure the NYT meant it as a compliment, and in that case, it’s crazy.
I may be the only one saying this, but I think by big they are referring to her rather large assets. I agree that when you have something large on you, adding large details, such as the ruffles on her dress, is not the best idea.
I am in not way calling her big, but I also wouldn’t call her perfectly proportioned. NEVER in a million years would I want her boobs.
agree with many of you, but id like to add that she is lucky, very lucky, with where her curves are and where her fat goes. because it goes perfectly into her thighs and boobs, and not into her stomach or face, we will never really see her as “big” or “fat”. it saddens me that jess simpson gets hell for her new figure cause shes actually smaller that christina and i bet weights so, so much less, but because her fat is not just in her boobs, but in her face and torso, some call her “fat”
i guess we judge the fatness of someone by their faces and stomachs, naturally
girls with skinny faces are so lucky. for me fat goes first into my face so if you saw a headshot of me youd think im fat
Big girl??? Seriously? She’s a stunner! So feminine and glamourous! I bet many woman would like to be ‘big’ as her.
wow when i saw her globes photo the other day, my first thought (after “wow look at her boobs”) was how thin she is for someone with such big boobs. definately not “big”, i think she has a much smaller waist than me and i have never been called big
“So perfectly-proportioned, clearly-at-a-healthy-weight Christina is a “big girl”. Not even a “curvy / voluptuous girl”, which has positive connotations, she’s big, people.
Thank you, NY Times, for that amazing piece of information.”
Haha I love the tone of this post, Versus.
I don’t think Christina Hendricks is “big.” I think she’s sexy. with awesome curves.
Thought this was Ashlee Simpson.
That was rude..extremely rude. They also made a very stupid comment referring to Michael C. Hall.
What shocks me is that the person who wrote those nasty things didn’t apologize….
She’s gorgeous in that dress and her body looks amazing. I actually think she lost a few pounds….Can’t believe someone called her a “big girl”, especially after seeing those pics…
OMG!!!
she’s soooo beautiful!!! I would kill for her body, maybe they meant Christina’s “girls” were big, and that dress suits her ’cause she is a really glamorous woman, I don’t think that a totally anorexic-hollywood-barbie girl would have been better on that dress.
Models have to be size 2 because designers want their clothes to be seen not the models, in some cases dresses wear the model, Christina WEARS that dress
am i the only one that would not want to lug those enormous boobs around??!! she is a beautiful girl, but i do not think those boobs are attractive at all.
she’s gorgeous…but maybe it’s b/c her titties are about to pop out?
Having an ill fitted dress isn’t doing her any favours. Her boobs make her look fat. They are almost under her chin for Gods sake!
Christina looks BEAUTIFUL! I don’t care what anyone says. I’m happy to see a more feminine shape on the red carpet! I repeat–this is beautiful:)
The NY Times is almost bankrupt. They will soon start charging readers for online content.
Obviously, they want to stir drama and attract some attention – and readers.
What a cheap way to do it. This is National Enquirer-type cheap.
Christina looks breathtaking and her body is beautiful.
Charging for online access?
They should can that idea before they even start it. The cat is out of the bag with regards to internet news. It’s not going back in. Murdoch tried to charge for much his content and has found no one is willing to pay for it. I should note he has gotten some success with the Wall Street Journal online but that is a medium most people are used to paying for. Personally, I think if you are paying for the WSJ you are a dolt and need to keep out of the market before you lose any more money. Some outlets are finding limited success with it but generally I think that idea is just laughable. I think much of this stems from the utter lack of preparation by most traditional media outlets. Most of them were taken by surprise by how quickly the internet became the dominant medium for news.
I think it’s telling that after all these years the Drudge Report still outdoes many of the top TV network news sites. Granted I’ve never found myself in agreement with Drudge’s politics in the last few years but I still have to admire his tenacity. “Alternative Media” is also doing quite well. I’ve found alternative talk radio is a booming business. These guys started on the internet for the most part though are are well aware of how to take advantage of it’s users (for good or ill i think).
I think the comments do more to show the utter dated nature of NYT’s writers. They really don’t get what decade they are living in.
i wish i was this big. she’s smoking hot!
I am surprised Kim Kardashwhatever, hasn’t put out a statement yet along the lines of, “if she is considered big, then I wonder what I’m considered”, like she did about the Jessica Simpson debacle…
She really shouldn’t. It would invite a comparison of the two, something Kim should avoid at all costs…
Wow, they attacked two of my favourite actors. I’m glad I don’t buy the NYtimes, because I’d feel so bad about throwing money on such a piece of crap.
I kind of agree with them. She is big. She definitely isn’t small, that’s for sure.
They arn’t saying she’s obese. She’s got big boobs and that dress doesn’t make them look smaller, and only makes her body in general bigger.
I agree Melanie!
IMO-
Her boobs are big (gigantic really and in your face) and even though she is smaller everywhere else she isn’t SMALL. Those ruffles and the color of the dress only add weight.
She’s so gorgeous, I thought her body looked to DIE for here…don’t listen to the NYT they’re crazy!!
Oh, gosh.
SHE IS SO SEXY.
And I’m straight!
Yes, she’s not “small”, but she’s obviously not “big”.
I wish I had curves (well-proportioned ones, mind you) like hers!
Not only that, they said Jennifer Anniston and Kate Hudson’s upper arms were getting bigger, that they’d gaining weight in their upper arms. SCREW YOU NY TIMES!!
They just want to call her “big” because of her chest. She is tiny and gorgeous. To hell with the NY times!
She looks good but I would never ever want boobs that big. They take up so much space and would be so annoying… they just dont look good. She would look better with a B cup.
I’m sure she’ll get breast reduction for you. Cause sure, anything that is bigger than a B is so repulsive. How can people live like that?
She is not fat, but she is just not very pretty or attractive to me. she is overrated.