The new Megan Fox.

 Shia Labouf talks Megan Fox.

The new transformers movie is going to come out this summer, but this time the lead female role and love interest will no longer be played by the beloved by men Megan Fox.  This time around, director Michael Bay has chosen Victoria's secret model Rosie Hunington-Whitely-a tall blond-as Megan Fox's replacement.  This New York Times article features an interview with Shia Labouf about the departure of Megan Fox from the third Transformers installment, and he speaks of Fox's insecurities of being put in the spotlight essentially through one film series and subsequently being perceived as the sexiest woman in America.  He talks about how she was uncomfortable with Michael Bay's demands for the role, which didn't involve a lot of lines, but rather sexy poses and a lot plain old "looking hot."  This article perfectly ties into the idea of the male gaze and the fetishistic perception of an ideal woman being portrayed through a camera lens.  Since Fox no longer felt comfortable doing the same thing for three films in a row, he ended up hiring an alternate that happens to be a Victoria Secret model; obviously sexy poses are what she does for a living so this acting job would not be much of an insecurity issue for her.  It is fascinating to see how directors will use woman in order to make money, because for example, this is Rosie's first acting job.  It proves that the image of a woman's body is the ideal way of making profit of a big Hollywood Blockbuster in America.

Ignorance in its purest form.

I came across this article in Marie Claire Magazine which is obviously a magazine that is directed towards women, fashion and beauty.  The article is titled, "Should Fatties Get a Room? (Even on TV)" and it talks about the new CBS sitcom Mike and Molly.  This article truly upset me because not only does Maura Kelly contradict herself over three times in the article, but is rude and disrespectful to anyone struggling with issues with weight.  By even titling the article with the word "Fatties" makes people that are overweight seem like complete outcasts and inhuman.  She clearly states; "So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other ... because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room — just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroine addict slumping in a chair."  A sentence later she says "Don't get me wrong..."  So the problem lies here that by making it seem like overweight people are undeserving of not only love, but anything really unless they lose weight, the "male gaze" subsequenly is further encouraged with images in media of what is a more socially acceptable body type.  Because these people may be more "aesthetically displeasing" to look at to her and others arguably, it diminishes what is the common perception of regularly shown heterosexual couples on television.  Therefore, a fetishistic view within scopephielia is not possible, and further encouraged.  What bothers me is the fact that she is truly ignorant to many issues going on in America, including the present "food deserts" in certain underprivileged communities.  She states that overweight people should simply get up and get moving, buy healthy food, and "stand" as much as possible.  She is not aware though, that many times the socioeconomic status and location of individuals does not allow for this, because if a grocery store is not present within a 10 mile radius, chances are a gym isn't either.  She may be lucky to be able to attend a gym in her high society fashion editor life style, but it is not fair to ignorantly publish an article pertaining to only a fraction of the population that can allow for the luxuries of the gym and healthy eating. 

Read more: Mike and Molly Show - Overweight Couples on Television - Marie Claire

My lovely lady humps

I recently stumbled across an article about women’s body type and what makes a woman beautiful. The publisher interviewed Emma Roberts as to why she thinks she is beautiful/what makes a woman beautiful. Roberts admitted that she is on the skinny side, and isn’t voluptuous as many other celebrities (aka Kim Kardashian), but is still beautiful despite her lack of female lumps.

This made me start to question: when did voluptous women start to become the symbol of beauty? I remember when every girl wanted to be anorexic skinny like Lindsay Lohan, and having some lady humps was considered beautiful.

I for one am not complaining. I believe I was born with my humps, and I plan on flaunting them as much as I please (I, however, do believe in having a tasteful, classy image to what I wear and try to avoid low-cut tops as much as possible). I am pleased to have read that many younger stars, such as Roberts, are looking at more voluptous women in a more healthy light. But who has the right to call someone else ugly, fat, skinny, or pretty?

No one, except the individual themselves. As the media may portray beautiful women to be a certain way, I honestly believe the personality of one can make up for whether the person is attractive or not. I am hoping that since the media has found more humpy women to be attractive, that personalities will become the deciding factor on whether someone is drop dead gorgeous or not.

Until then, I guess we will continue to live in a somewhat judgmental, shallow world. But I firmly believe that the media shouldn’t portray a women’s beauty slowly on the size of her hips, or whether she is an A or DD bra cup, but rather how the person is making a difference in the world.

And by that definition, Kim Kardashian should not be considered as one of the role model to many young females, but I’ll save that for another day.

-Alex Higgins