This morning I was watching the morning news, and the female presenter, whose name escapes me, had a bit of a tummy. I wondered if she was pregnant. And indeed, she was, cos she mentioned it later.
Isn't it messed up, in a way, that you see a presenter and they look a bit big round the middle and the only possible explanation is that they must be pregnant? Like people who don't have tiny little waists are incapable of reading the news?
No Mayorquimby, not the point I was making. Just... I'm conditioned to expect thin female presenters, and it annoys me. Why can't they have a big tummy cos it's a food baby? Why can't they be "normal" sized? With all the rich plethora of sizes normal entails? I only noticed because it's something different. And I bet the media would ban pregnant women too if they could get away with it.
No they wouldn't. Pregnant women = more publicity and higher ratings for tv shows. No reason why they'd ban it, it gives otherwise bland and uninteresting presenters a readymade story and connection with the audience. There's idiots who will see them and go, "awwww they're pregnant, I am/was pregnant too I can relate tot them. they're just like me."
I agree with you OP. Not about Supernanny, though, she gets on my nerves.
I think about this a lot when listening to Woman's Hour on Radio 4- Jenni Murray has to be one of the best, most insightful TV presenter we have in this conutry, and she is actually very beautiful... I wonder whether she's not on TV though choice, or because she's bigger?