I have a bone to pick with the media.

(And no, I’m not about to get serious on you about politics, or the lack of important coverage crowded out by festivities taking place across the pond. I mean, really, who are you talking to?)

Lately, it seems that different magazines have taken the stand that there is a new “trend” in Holloywood and on the runway. A trend towards the “curvy, voluptuous” woman. Some have gone so far as to say, the “real” woman.

Seriously?

I’ll be the first to concede that not every female on TV currently looks like an Ally McBeal character. (Go back and watch some episodes and then try to figure out how every teen watching that show didn’t end up with an eating disorder) But frankly, its insulting to be told that actresses like America Ferrera and Kim Kardashian are a sign of times changing. Have you actually looked at these women?

Maybe in early days of Ms. Ferrara entering the world of acting, the “Real Women Have Curves” era, would I feel I could relate to her, but now? She can’t possibly be more than a size 8 (and if she is, get me her stylist PRONTO).

Kim Kardashian? Having a bubble butt does NOT qualify as being every woman. Maybe if the rest of your figure was proportionate to the one feature everyone focuses on, I could relate.

Now, one of the few current actresses who might actually have a dress in her closet I could wear (minus 5 pounds maybe) is Christina Hendricks. Or so I am guessing. “They” say she is a size 12. Every last pound of that girl is gorgeous. But, let’s be real. Do you think Hollywood would be so accepting if her bust didn’t have it’s own gravitational pull?

So, if you are keeping track, Hollywood is telling us that it’s ok to be a “big girl” so long as a) you aren’t REALLY a big girl b) just your butt is big or c) your boobs are large enough that everything else looks substantially smaller.

I’m not saying that Hollywood needs to suddenly start scouring the Lane Bryant’s of the world finding their next star. I would just prefer they stop trying to sell us on the idea that these actresses are a representation of “real” women.

Unless you bring back the Lillian Russel era. Then, we’ll talk.

There is a lot of talk of this Royal wedding business. I, for one, can’t seem to get excited about some people I don’t know getting dressed up in clothes that probably cost more than my car, in an event that could easily pay my mortgage several times over.

Not a fan of the opulence.

But, after reading Girl Parker’s post today about her willingness to lose sleep to witness the event via TV, I am beginning to understand the pull for some. Every little girl’s princess fantasy.

Understanding where her interest stems makes my lack of interest even clearer.

I’m not saying there wasn’t a Disney princess I wanted to be.

I was thrilled when the brunette, book-bearing Belle and her Beast showed up in the Disney repertoire. She was a girl I could relate to. But I far preferred her every day dress for roaming the town over that puffy yellow thing she waltzed around in. And I wondered what happened after her beast turned into a prince and she had to live the royal life? Something tells me she probably wasn’t throwing lavish galas and hobnobbing with royalty from the next kingdom over.

And when it comes to princes…did you see the guy the Beast turned into? Man, did he look dull. I don’t see him coming to my rescue when I’m about to be attacked by ravenous wolves in the forest.

I don’t think that means that I lacked that sense of wonder as a child. My dreams involved singing like Patti Lupone or being the heroine of whatever book I was reading at the moment.

And my princes? Probably Muppets.

I really love this and had to share. From both the student and teacher perspective, I couldn’t agree with this more.

And, wow, this guy knows how to deliver.