Lots of interesting comments on that blog. I really identify with this one:
I am one of the people who “think that way", and I’ve been irritated for a long time at the use of “real” to mean “larger". I’ve seen catalogs tat say, “our pants now have longer rises to fir real women". Those rises come halfway up my ribs, so what does that make me?
I just don’t think that reacting to prejudice with opposing prejudice is a productive way to think. I think inclusivenss is a better way. I’m small and I’m real, dammit. My sister in law is tall and model-shaped and she’s real. My MIL is plump and she’s real. My mother has been working out and has an odd distrubution of fat in some places and muscle in others, but however she’s shaped, she is real.
Anyhow, just in terms of scansion, I think the title would be punchier with the ‘reals’ removed: “30 Big, Bold Projects for Women with Curves".
I try not to be too sensitive about it, but the truth is, I have the body of a twelve year old. (But with a post-babies gut. :rollseyes:) Really, the majority of junior high girls in America have more curves than I do. And the message I hear again and again from the media is that this means I'm not a "real woman." Now, I'm not insecure enough to go out and have plastic surgery so I look like a "real woman," but honestly it does rub me the wrong way.