Quite rightly there has been a backlash from those who say there is nothing wrong with being very slender and from others that point out that women should not slavishly mold their size on anyone. Both reasonable points. But what has annoyed me personally have been some of the other suggestions and inferences.
One is that Ms Hendricks size is unattainable and that size 14, being by implication a 'fat' size, means you don't have a waist. Just a big stomach. It is quite true that on Mad Men the actress is squeezed into corsetry. This has been pointed out with some glee by certain commentators. This leads me to my first point. Surely changing your shape with foundation garments is more healthy, reasonable and convenient than starving or liposuction? And aren't those corsets, well sexy?
The other issue is shape. Obviously if you were naturally a petite slim 10 and you fattened yourself up you could not guarantee where the weight will go and you could end up barrel shaped. However if you are naturally in the 12-14 size range it seems likely that you will be curvaceous in the hourglass sense. Being a 14 does not automatically equate to being round. It is a natural size to be. My natural size is, and has always been either a size 12 or 14. I didn't swell up to get there, I grew up into this size from being a child to a teenager. And in any case only in a hopelessly screwed up culture would she be described as anything but quite trim.
What is difficult to emulate is Ms Hendricks creamy complexion, beautiful features and marvelous hair. However my opinion is that by being a different body shape to that generally promoted by body fascists her presence is welcome even though personally I would rather young women aspired to education and success. In any case I'll let the lady herself have the last word: