It worked earlier.
I was actually kidding. Its another one of those “knitting for fat chicks” books. There’s a whole woopdie doo on other knitting boards (with a feminist consciousness) about it. lesse if this link works:
if ‘real’ is ‘normal’ than that book title is pretty right-on as the average US woman is size 14.
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.
It seems futile to me to compensate for leaving out a major group of women by calling them “real” b/c it just alienates another group of women. We’re all real, no matter if we’re stick thin, a heavy honey, or somewhere in between. On one hand I know that they mean real as in “yes, Virginia, there is another body type that exists that isn’t currently represented in today’s fashion.” But I’m sorry, there are women out there who struggle to GAIN weight, or who are too tall for most stores, so why should I not call them real? Just b/c you’re thin doesn’t mean your conforming to what the media thinks you should look like - maybe you’re just born that way and live a healthy lifestyle. I like the title suggestion of “…for women with curves” - I think that is fine.
But I guess no matter what you do, someone’s going to be offended.
Ok, I have to stop, I’m just in too much of an argumentative, grumpy-a$$ mood today :doh:
We;re all “real” (whatever that means) I’m what I self-describe as being a “curvacious babe” :roflhard: but I’m no more or less real than my dd who is petite, thin, and has very long arms and legs. She’s a size 0 round but is almost as tall as I am (although I’m not that tall, but she is not even a teen yet!)
I think most women have some sort of difficulty in finding clothes. Leg length, rise, arm length, shoulder width, bust measurement, waist length. Heck I was thrilled when “just below waist” jeans came out because they came right to my waist! And let’s not even get into bras. Can’t tell you the number of times I have seen bra ads where the models are wearing bras that aren’t their sizes! (rant rant rant) :roflhard:
Seconds here on the “bra rant”!! I’ve never had one that fitted OR was comfortable. Now that I’m on the “later” side of the 50’s, I KNOW I won’t ever find one!!!
And if size 14 is normal–I’m so normal!!! Oh well–I guess I wasn’t meant to ba a skinny-minny!!
:roflhard: :roflhard: :roflhard: :roflhard: