Height ranges are mentioned on top. That said, why do we keep harping on 160 pounds when the onlly verification we have of that number is the same person whose statements are being questioned? Honestly, would you be willing to bet any significant amount of money on whether Schumer could fit into a size 6 or 8?
It’s tough for everyone, especially nowadays. I think this is something that tends to get lost in these discussions. It’s not as if most leading men have fewer expectations put on them for the most part.
Yes, as does everyone. Do you really think no one would have anything to say if Mark Wahlberg packed on 40 pounds and tried to play a heart throb. Again, former World’s Sexiest Man Bradley Cooper was told he was not fuckable by industry people. Should we really feel that bad for him or anyone in his position?
Because she is claiming the game is rigged while playing it and profiting from the things that make it rigged. Schumer is basically good looking enough to trade on her looks, but not good looking enough to get the price she wants, so she is annoyed. She can play roles that generally won’t go to the Melissa McCarthys, Mindy Kalings, and Tiny Feys of the comedy world, but can’t get roles reserved for Jennifer Lawrence or Emma Stone. She doesn’t have to be in the lane she chose to be in.
I really don’t understand why you’re resisting this notion so vehemently. Look at Schumer’s lingerie pic in the link I gave previously: does that really look way different from 160 pounds to you?
I honestly do think she looks a bit heavier than 160 in those, but in the earlier photos from 2011-2012, she looks to me that she might even be in the 140s.
But isn’t the denotation essentially “larger than you probably should be”? I don’t think we should attach the level of shame and judgment we do to those things, but I don’t think it makes any sense to keep moving what is “normal” based on a society that is increasingly less healthy on average.
But the weights would need to be adjusted for height to describe size accurately. You can’t tell what size somebody is just by knowing their weight, and the chart you linked to that includes weight does not adjust size for relative height.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
That said, why do we keep harping on 160 pounds when the onlly verification we have of that number is the same person whose statements are being questioned?
[/quote]
As I keep saying, we’ve got plenty of pictures of this person available, in various stages of undress. Why does that 160 number seem unrealistic to you?
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
It’s not as if most leading men have fewer expectations put on them for the most part.
[/quote]
Of course they do. For one thing, leading men have a much larger age window for leading-man roles.
For another, men have a wider range of appearance types that are considered “leading-man-appropriate”. E.g., Benedict Cumberbatch, Seth Rogen, and Bill Murray all look very different from the typical “hot actor” image of a classically handsome heartthrob, but nobody bats an eye when they get romantic leads in rom-coms.
But when an actress like Amy Schumer points out that she is not actually particularly fat or particularly ugly, people get indignant that she’s somehow stepping “out of her league” or not knowing her place.
To be honest, those women look way thinner than Schumer does today. Was she that thin, and even more so, a few years back, yeah. But I’d actually say, based on those comparison shots specifically, she’s probably 180ish (5’7’’ as a given). Not that doesn’t make her attractive - I think she’s a very attractive woman, but I’ll join with brickbacon and say she’s sending some mixed messages.
Hmm did you look at the picture at all? that is an obvious photoshop, that is a BAD photoshop. That someone would try to pass that picture as an accurate representation of themselves is embarrassingly stupid.
shrug I personally wouldn’t bet on it, and I’m a photographer. That’s a picture of her from March 2011, from what I can tell. Looking at the other photos of her from 2011, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s fairly accurate. For example, look at this press photo of her from that same month and year.
Yes, that’s why there is a range. Again, I am not saying it’s impossible or that that chart is definitive, but rather that it backs what many incredulous people seem to be saying.
Because she appears heavier than when she said she was 160 pounds. Either way, neither of us have a strong basis for argument. It’s not as if you can really tell from a picture.
Not really. Superstars might not (eg. Jack Nicholson, Robert DeNiro, etc.), but men have to generally be better looking than average too. That is unless they write and create their own stuff.
But that’s less a function of there being more roles, not decreased expectations.
Seth Rogan wrote his own stuff. Bill Murray was famous and bankable before he ever got movie roles. The female analogues would be people like Tina Fey, and Lena Dunham. Not many men of less than average attractiveness are hired to play roles without being known quantities.
But that’s not the sum total of what she is saying. She is using her attractiveness as her calling card, then getting mad when people aren’t as impressed with her as she is of herself. She makes her looks part of her comedy. She has every right to do that, but let’s not pretend that’s the only lane for females in show business. You generally don’t see people like Mindy Kaling, Tina Fey, Any Phoeler, Melissa McCarthy, or Kirsten Wiig do that despite them all being attractive people.
The perfect example of this is her getting a trailblazer award, and using her speech to opine about how she is around 160 pounds and can “catch a dick whenever [she] want[s]”. Where are these throngs of people asking her how much she weighs and saying she is too unattractive to get laid? No one outside of a few delusional agents and some cruel people on the internet.
I’m not sure how you can even compare the two pictures, the one you posted shows what an actual human being is supposed to look like, the one i posted is completely wrong in several areas that correspond to usual photoshop manipulation.
Perhaps, but if you push back you are kinda tacitly acknowledging it’s actually a bad thing, or that enough other people think it’s bad that you are worried their outlooks will hurt you. That’s where the mixed message thing comes from. It’s like when a straight male star is accused of being gay. You can ignore it or calmly say, “hey, I’m not gay”. But when you go above and beyond that by mentioning how many chicks you’ve banged, it kinda becomes weird. Schumer didn’t just go out of her way to say, “I’m not plus-sized” when someone vaguely insinuated she might be, she went on about how much she actually weighs, what size she is, and tweeted old, flattering pics of herself to bolster her claims. She is clearly overcompensating while steadfastly denying there is anything bad about being plus-sized. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
Melissa McCarthy is a physical comedian, so the analogy isn’t really apt. The fact is there are very few rom-coms with overweight men or women as the leads.
I don’t see the same thing you do, but it’s immaterial. She looks just as skinny to me in the no-doubt-about-it real photo; she may as well have tweeted that photo. She’s definitely under 160 there; I’d put her at 140. Still, it’s a really old photo and, double still, I don’t really care, but she really does look to me like she could have been a size six at that time.
I’m not really sure how she could go about discussing this real issue, without it seeming like it was about her. I think about the only thing she could have done is have someone else say it.
I mean, if she admits that it also bothers her personally, then everyone will use that as an excuse. And if she doesn’t, then she’s just hiding it. There’s no way to actually prove that she’s not concerned about herself.
That said, she could have helped things by not mentioning her size. That did add to the idea that she is vain. Better would to have been to cite statistics about average body weight and such. Point out that she is a perfectly average woman–if maybe a little bit skinny. And maybe make some self-deprecating remarks about her pudgy face making her look bigger.
Because mentioning a size you don’t look is gonna come off as vain, no matter what. And rigidly defining “plus sized” at a certain size is only going to seem like she’s trying to be technically correct. Which, in this case, is not the best kind of correct.
Is Amy even an important enough star for Glamour to care what she says? I had the impression she was at best a B list celebrity. She gets her name in the papers a lot but that means little. Any publicity is good publicity as the saying goes.
Are we still talking about Amy Schumer’s dress size?
She’s one of those comediennes who I kind of desperately wish were funny because we need another Gilda Radner or Jane Curtain, but she’s just not all that funny, regardless of her size or shape. She’s kind of the female Seth Rogan; you’d be okay hanging out with her and hearing her trash talk other people, but I’m not going to shell out good money to see her perform, and nothing she says is especially novel, even if it is intended to skewer self-entitled white girls (who are frankly a hard target to satirize since they so frequently top any attempt to exaggerate their mannerisms). So, I have a big yawn about her manufactured outrage about being considered plus-sized, especially since 80% of her standup is about how she’s not so attractive or slender.
Schumer wrote Trainwreck, and Judd Apatow specifically signed on to produce it as a vehicle for her. She did not “get” that role; she created that role for herself and Judd Apatow made sure it got made.
This is exaggerated by only looking at the old end of the spectrum. When you factor in that women can start being leading ladies much younger than men, men still have a larger range but not a “much” larger range.
Roughly speaking, women get the 20-year window from 16-36, while men get the 25-year window from 26-51.
Jennifer Lawrence is only 25 right now, but has had a pretty good career as a leading lady for a while now. Her first leading role, not as a love interest but as the actual main character of a feature film, was eight years ago. (She didn’t hit it big until six years ago, with Winter’s Bone, but even then she was still a teenager.)
Compare to Brad Pitt, who was already 28 when he got that bit part in Thelma & Louise, started getting leading roles in his 30s and is currently aging out of leading roles now at 53. Or George Clooney, who was 33 when he got his first major role on ER. (Not the E/R precursor.)
Her comedy shows sell out arenas like the United Center and Trainwreck was one of the biggest movies of last year - so yeah, I’d say she’s above B-list at the moment.
