Blokes calling out blokes: “Butterbodies” on Spike TV


[Left to right: Drew Barrymore, Tyra Banks, and Sara Ramirez.]

After airing those Douchebag oTY contestants, here are some mad props – to an unlikely sort of crowd, the commentariat at Spike TV.

Nick Coles dropped this little flight of douchewhimsy last week, “The Top 7 Butterbodies“. Coles called out Salma Hayek, Mandy Moore, Liv Tyler, and Tyra Banks for being “frumpy”, “pudgy”, and “blubbery”, and for “letting themselves go”:

“If you are rich and famous, there is no excuse for being a butterbody. It’s your job to look fit and hot. Celebrities are not like normal people. […]

[Barrymore] says she basically lives on carbs and eats whatever she wants. As a bonafide star, Drew cannot do this. Otherwise every hot woman in Hollywood will adopt a similar mentality and the world will be void of super thin, super hot women.[…]

[Hayek’s] only saving grace is her magnificent breasts. The extra weight she gained has gone directly to her breasts, and it is glorious. [Ed: She’s breastfeeding, you twonk.]

[Ferrera] basically gives women an excuse to be fat.[…]

His readers are not amused. Vocally. And at length. And I salute them.

The slight attenuation of my madproppishness is due to the fact that most (though not all) of the comments centre around “They ARE SO hot, loser!” rather than “How about not valuing women purely by their physical appearance at all, folks?” but hey, I’m taking what antisizeist crumbs I can.

I’ve got another blokes-calling-sexist-blokes-out post in the works. I’m not so often into the gratuitous and immoderate cookie-bestowal, but hey, we’re still within a month of Christmas, and I’m feeling the goodwill. What examples of this phenomenon have you noticed lately?

via After Ellen.

Categories: gender & feminism

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

27 replies

  1. Otherwise every hot woman in Hollywood will adopt a similar mentality and the world will be void of super thin, super hot women.
    Translation: Otherwise I might have to relinquish the illusion that the world revolves around my cock.

  2. Oh, and (sorry for not including this in my first comment), I am happy and proud to report that my beloved has put himself out there and called out his co-workers for sexism–something that’s not always easy to do, particularly since the person he was calling out was quite senior to him (although not his boss).

  3. Holy crap, could this guy be any more epically self-centered? Sorry, man, celebrities actually don’t exist to be *your* dream jerk-off material (but Gods forbid that we burst his bubble about that whole, “different people find different things attractive, and some of those things don’t actually rhyme with “quits” and “lass”!)

  4. Oh Beppie, tell us the story
    -the BF calling out sexism one, that is, not the one about the world revolving around that guy’s cock. I think we can all say we’ve heard too many versions of that one.

  5. “Otherwise every hot woman in Hollywood will adopt a similar mentality and the world will be void of super thin, super hot women.”
    This sounds just like a parody making fun of clueless entitled men, I can’t believe anyone actually said it seriously.

  6. Oh, there’s not much to it really. Boyfriend’s co-worker was making comments about a Heineken ad that involved the body of a woman being conflated with a consumable product, and Boyfriend pointed out that this was misogynist. Co-worker said that it was political correctness gone mad, and that he now had less respect for my boyfriend. Boyfriend said that he didn’t care.
    (This same co-worker had previously told my boyfriend that he thought we had an unusually honest relationship– he seems to have missed the obvious fact that it’s easier for women to be honest with guys who are willing to examine the misogyny that society spews forth.)

  7. My husband has always had a really huge crush on Liv Tyler, but has also often commented on her being Hollywood thin. So who knows, he might actually find her more attractive now that she is closer to a weight that most women might not have to reach by utterly starving themselves. Obviously, that must be impossible though since all men prefer their women tiny and airbrushed?
    I know that’s not a critique of the tendency to judge women based on looks alone, but at the same time I don’t think there’s anything wrong with finding someone attractive or having a celebrity crush. And I’m simply saying that from that angle, there’s also a more subtle reinforcement of proper masculinity (aside from the rather overt reinforcement of proper femininity) that tells men what they should and should not find attractive, and claims to speak for all of them.

  8. I absolutely agree that androgynous hyperthin supermodels are beyond unattractive. I’ll have a curvy Venus with boobs, a softly rounded belly and hips, thanks. If I wanted androgyny, I’d be a paedophile.
    Kitchen goddess Nigella Lawson is no waif, but what sane soul would take cooking pointers from bag-o-bones Kate Moss? Nigella is nothing but an overtly woman-shaped bucket of HOTness. *swoon* Yes please- and with caramel sauce, at bedtime. 🙂

  9. That was part of my problem with it, Cara, the complete cluelessness that anyone could possibly think differently.

  10. I’m with Michelle, here. I think it’s probably parody. But if it isn’t he’s an idiot. As for not judging women by their bodies – if you’re a model or a film star – yep, part of the job description is to look gorgeous. It always has been. That doesn’t equate with being skinny, however.

  11. I would really like to think it’s a parody along with Fine and Michelle, but I still find it really troubling. Even if on the one hand it’s parodying society’s obsession with weight, on the other it’s still selecting women like Tyra Banks and Sara Ramirez, who *are* often attacked for their weight.
    Now, a satire taking Kristen Bell and Zhang Ziyi and castigating them in overblown “JESUS IT’S A WHALE GRAB THE HARPOONS!” prose would actually be successful in pointing out how ludicrous articles like this one really are.

  12. I was at first inclined to hope it was parody, but given the general thrust of the website (Girls! Bikini! Fetish! Nipple slip! Celebrity Skin! Hawt Lesbians!) it seems unlikely.
    weez: This is an anti-sizeist post. Just as I ask that commenters refrain on sledging medium and fat bodies, I ask that they refrain from sledging thin bodies. Critique societal pressures, yes. Slam women on the basis of their body size or shape, no. You can also safely assume here that if nobody asked you what increases the blood flow to your genitals, or which sauce you’d like to rub onto which celebrity, we don’t want to know. Cheers.

  13. I didn’t actually think it was a parody, just that it’s such a stupid statement that it sounds like one. I do believe that it’s quite possible for someone to be so stupid as to articulate exactly what their sense of entitlement is. I wouldn’t know whether it’s a parody or not, it’s very hard to tell sometimes.
    Michelle’s last blog post..Word o the other day

  14. I’m with QoT on this one. I’m over the “it’s meant to be *funny*… like… *parody*” excuse (not that anyone here is saying that, but I suspect it’s the author’s defense). All that that means is that someone knows they’re saying something fucked up, but thinks that it’s funny to say it so shamelessly. It’s not. It’s not bucking a trend, or drawing attention to any hypocrisy by exacerbating it until it’s self-evidently ludicrous. It’s just repeating, knowingly, (and that tends to mean ‘even more overtly’), the same old crap. And I have to be honest, I was surprised by the decency of many of the responses; some even got beyond the ‘let’s still assess women solely on their bodies, and declare them still registering on the hawt-o-meter!’. That rates, I have to say, in the context of the internet!
    Speaking of which, did anyone see the forum thread at xkcd (I know you did, Quix 🙂 I appreciated your contribution!) for this strip: I was surprised both at the number of men who cheerfully said ‘omg, I do this! He’s so right, it doesn’t work!’ and those who were willing to step up to say ‘Yeah, okay, if you’re saying that, you’re really not getting the point here…’.

  15. Huh. Okay, that was a spinning-wildly-out-of-control-off-the-tracks comment. Don’t mind me!! I am very tired and a massively scatty…

  16. I… see nothing wrong with it, WP! Maybe I’m scatty too. Totally agree about the “I’m so edgy/non-PC” yawnfest.

  17. Side note–Beppie, that’s interesting you mention that advert as I find it interesting that Heineken took it to the world market. I seem to remember it being on at Super Bowl time (e.g. around now) last year, here in the US, disturbing the hell out of me then.

  18. Oh, I meant more the second half of the comment, L 🙂 ‘Oh yes, and do let’s talk about this thing I was thinking about which is really only linked to the topic by the finest of threads..’ Heh.

  19. Hands up anyone who doesn’t like butter?
    Deus Ex Macintosh’s last blog post..Back to the Future

  20. I was hoping, before I read the article, that they meant “butterbodies” in the sense of smooth, creamy and delicious. Sigh.
    @Michelle, WildlyParenthetical:
    I do kind of get the idea they are, in some sense, trolling their readership — that is, trying to get a rise out of sane people. But then I guess that’s what trashy, sensational “journalism” has always been about — saying stupid and hurtful stuff for fun and profit — it’s kind of the pre-internet form of trolling, except these guys apparently get paid.

  21. Yes, with the *butterbodies* tag, everyone KNOWS butter is delicious, and FAR better for the cooking of mind blowingly awesome bakery treats – so I’d kind of like to retrieve butter body from this douchehound for a self descriptor. Smooth, luscious, creamy, generous…(ok, that’s just me having some fun after the fact, I know it’s not the point, that even if you can retrieve it, its intent was horrible).
    I’ve been stuck on something the last couple of days – the sense of entitlement of men, to categorise, and label and name TRUTH.
    They come up with ‘Haw Haw’ *names* like Cougar and Butterbody and snigger over how funny they are to accurately codename something such as a woman above 20 daring to have a sexual appetite, or a woman who is not starving herself daring to dress and strut with confidence, or have photos taken, or appear in public.
    And as women, as the targets, or part of a group whose members are being grouped, classified and labelled, we can reject it, and say it’s misogynist (to be greeted with ostentatious yawns of boredom, or with heckling and ridicule) or reclaim it in some way, but not *stop* it or change the system, or take the sting out of men reducing us to insults.
    And then the suggestion from men (and well meaning men) is, well WOMEN should do the same to men, it’d be funny if you started throwing it back…but…the whole POINT of these labels, the whole butt of the joke is that they name and define us as a thing, an attribute that shames women for something connected with womanhood (or *wrong* womanhood, or *non manliness* or whatever, but it’s always a dig at some failure/alleged perversity what have you). If what men *are* is so celebrated and revered (and this goes to our linguistic and social system priviledging attributes associated with men at the cost of those associated with women) then naming *that*, naming one of those attributes in a humorous manner doesn’t have the same sting, and by definition never can.

  22. androgynous hyperthin supermodels are beyond unattractive… If I wanted androgyny, I’d be a paedophile.
    Thanks for tackling this, Lauredhel. Though I and my rather well-defined skeleton are worthless to Weez, your defence means an awful lot.

  23. fuckpoliteness, you’re full of brilliance.
    Jet’s last blog post..Wanker of the Day

  24. T.A.K, I feel like I owe you an apology here. I’m so very sick of this kind of “YUCK, CURVES ON A WOMEN, HOW DISGUSTING” stuff, that I galvanise against that. In so doing I think I’ve implied above that all women who are very thin are ‘starving themselves’ – what I mean is that there is that very real pressure on all women in Hollywood etc TO do this, and that many women held up as the ultimate in HAWT are having to diet their lives away. If I’ve in any way contributed to the sense of “YUCK, THIN WOMEN ARE GROSS”, I apologise, as that’s not what I think/mean, and it’s just as disrespectful to women as “YUCK CURVES”.

  25. Woah, fp, don’t worry about me. I know you weren’t attacking the underweight. As part of the Xylophone Ribcage 1st Batallion, I get all the breaks in this society. (Except the guys in bars who kindly inform me that my AA cleavage is inadequate. Very helpful.) I do what I can to be one of the “privileged calling out the privileged.”
    Just the complete dissonance of wantng every woman to be superthin, but not look emaciated… it’s like the classic catch-22 of needing to dress to show skin, but not look tarty, or maintain grooming standards but not take long in the bathroom.

  26. See, there I go, using the terminology of the a sizeist society myself. Perhaps replace “underweight” with “razorsharp-elbows-of-pointy-death brigade”.

  27. Just the complete dissonance of wantng every woman to be superthin, but not look emaciated

    No bones! It’s the obvious solution. We could use that bone-healing spell that went wrong in Harry Potter.

%d bloggers like this: