I’m a funny one. My brain is wired weird, and sometimes it’s scary but most of the time it’s amusing. Take for example my response when asked what I, a hetereosexual woman, consider to be the ideal male physique. Most people would list about three traits, like “tall, broad shoulders, perfect teeth.” My list is… a bit longer. And don’t ask me where I get this stuff, because I just discovered in my psyche one day during my teen years, parked right next to my equally untraceable food and music preferences.
My unimaginably nitpicky criteria for the ideal male body:
Well-shaped butts, long legs, no chest hair and very little visible body hair, a certain length to the frame (a proportion I can’t describe, but I know it when I see it), a certain breadth to the shoulders (again, a very specific proportion), and the muscle tone has to be defined to a certain degree and no more but I’m not talking about the actual shape he’s in, but rather an intrinsic way his body arranges muscle and fat.
Yes, folks: the way a man’s skin, fat and muscle cling together is something that makes a difference in how attractive he is to me. Shut up. Da Vinci would’ve understood.
But a few days after I wrote that out last week and realized how hilariously specific it is, I had a truly sobering moment when I realized: my weird ideal for the male body is less specific than the US’s base requirements for a supporting or lead actress. Women who don’t meet those requirements get shuffled into “character acting.” A successful character actor is one of those familiar faces that’s been on all the big TV shows (and probably gets more interesting roles than lead and supporting actors), but you don’t know her name. Actresses are advised by agents whether their looks qualify them to pursue lead and supporting roles or doom them to “character actor” status.
The criteria for a lead or supporting actress runs something like this (at the moment – it changes every decade).
US Film & TV base requirements for lead/supporting actresses
(You can lack perhaps one to three of these traits, but you must feature the vast majority to get work in the US.)
- Underweight.
- White.
- Fleshy, pouty lips. If she’s serious about an acting career, she’ll get the collagen shots. (Oh, by the way, rumor has it: pouty lips are out, cheek implants are in. Actress wannabes are advised to see their cosmetic surgeons for complete details on sucking out the collagen and stuffing the cheeks until you look you have three noses. Mmm, sexy.)
- Long legs.
- Look 30 or younger. (There will be 5 roles reserved in every generation for women who look grown up. Good luck landing them, ladies.)
- Several inches taller than the average woman (average height is just under 5’4″ – most actresses are at least 5’6″).
- Medium to largish breasts. (They don’t want her to look like a porn star, but if she’s serious about an acting career, she’ll get those A-cups bumped up to at least a full B.)
- No big noses.
- No noses with bumps. (You can maybe get a part on a nine year old ailing Sci-Fi channel show with an imperfect nose, but you will not be deluged with offers from Hollywood.)
- No chins which seem long or short in proportion to the rest of the face (unless you’re a Barrymore or a Spelling, in which case the rules don’t apply to you, sweetie, and can we get you something else, anything else, and please remember us to your folks!).
- Perfect teeth.
- Big eyes. (Jennifer Garner is the only exception, and look how she’s got the puffy lips and all the other traits right down.)
- Long, glossy hair.
- No visible body hair (not that this isn’t an expectation for women outside of acting, too).
- Curvy, female butts are in right now. They weren’t 10 years ago. Enjoy the whiplash from trying to keep up.
Acting talent is optional. Conversely:
US Film & TV base requirements for potential lead actor:
- White.
- Perfect teeth.
Failing to nail either of these will slow a man’s acting career down considerably, but hallelujah, thanks to dentistry, at least the field’s wide open to white guys of every description.
Do you see the problem?
Among supporting and lead male actors we have a few truly fat men and a lot of chubby guys and a lot of guys who look slim in a suit but have a little extra padding around the middle. None of these guys would have the careers they have if we applied the same standards to male and female actors. We have guys with lovely glossy hair and guys with shaved heads or various stages of balding. We have guys with big noses and weak chins. Short guys like Tom Cruise. Guys with overhanging brows. Beady eyes.
I mean, if we bumped male requirements up to something as specific as the requirements for women, the US film and TV industry would lose all its leading men overnight (just “underweight” wipes out the whole brigade, though I’m sure some of them would be willing to starve if their careers were on the line). And wouldn’t that be a pity for all those people, including me, who find quite a few American lead actors attractive despite their “flaws”? Or because of them?
How does this shit happen?
This is all a by-product of a sexist culture, but the specific mechanism that takes place is this: when industry people look at a male actor, they see and evaluate the whole man as a total package of talent, physicality, and charisma. When they look at a female actor, they see parts. They see boobies and puffy lips and butts and legs and height and hair and eyes. If they don’t see the parts they’re looking for, they write her off. In short, they can’t see the forest for the T&A.
And don’t forget the casting couch. Women weren’t allowed to act in Shakespeare’s day, so female actors have really been fighting for inclusion for five centuries, and a lot of people in the early days of film and TV didn’t let women forget that. If women wanted roles, they could damn well go the extra mile to get them, and that meant giving someone sexual favors. And now that demanding sexual favors for roles is less common than it used to be, the attitude remains the same: those uppity females need to work harder than a man, if they want a role from me. Since acting is a subjectively measured craft, the only objective requirements men who hate women can force on them are visual. Film is the perfect place for this brand of misogyny because it’s one of the last industries where you can turn someone down for not looking a certain way.
Ever since men were oh-so-kind enough to let women have jobs as an alternative to sexually gratifying men in order to be provided for, women have been struggling with extra tough requirements. Look at the airlines, who as recently as 1982 were requiring women flight attendants to be skinnier than men. It’s all about white men seeing the world as something they own exclusive rights to, and if others want a slice they’ll have to prove they know their rightful second-class place in it by complying with a bunch of insane demands as a show of loyalty to the white male power structure.
Do real life men – you know, the audience – turn up their noses at an overall attractive woman because her lips don’t pout, she carries a few extra pounds, or her nose isn’t a particular shape? Does anyone know a real life heterosexual man who’s that picky? …that you do not suspect of being secretly gay and using this stuff as an excuse not to date the woman with whom you’re trying to fix him up?
Jennifer’s proposed list of male criteria to make things fair
I don’t actually advocate this list. Like I said, many actors I love would not make the cut. This is just for demonstration purposes.
- Lean physique, lean faces. No beer bellies, no fleshy faces. (Even though fleshy faces can be attractive, sorry; they’re not in at the moment. Get over it.)
- White.
- Full lips.
- Long legs.
- ETA: Tight, well shaped butts.
- Dramatic cheekbones. (Kind of random, but hey, we have to sort the winners and losers somehow, right?)
- Several inches taller than the average man (average is 5’10″, so we’re talking a 6′ minimum).
- Broad shoulders.
- No big noses (there goes 25% of them).
- No imperfect noses (another 25%).
- No weak or jutting chins (another 25% – wow, this is awesome! Soon we’ll have all those men begging us for a session on the casting couch!).
- Perfect teeth.
- Big eyes.
- Glossy hair.
That’s really not enough. To balance out the breast obsession, I should spell out some sort of criteria for acceptable nipples and pectoral muscle shapes. I have trouble doing that because even I’m not that picky and I know there’s no single ideal. And yet the same is true with women’s breasts, and we still have to cope with this fixation.
Imagine how many attractive, fascinating male actors this criteria would weed out.
Now imagine how many attractive, fascinating female actors you’ve never had the chance to see.


{ 104 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
I think age is another factor. Leading men can be ANY age and get it on with much younger women. This is never the case in reverse.
And, these ‘standards’ seep into UK TV too. Ancient, old, codgers like Terry Wogan (71) and Bruce Forsyth (81) always have pretty, young, co-presenters only a half their age on their arm, eg: Tess Daly (38). Whilst older female presenters just get less and less work. Why not have Gloria Hunniford (69) paired with Wogan??? Or, a cute male presenter half her age? It just wouldn’t happen would it?
Dingledoodie(Quote) (Reply)
You forgot perfect skin! Both genders have to have perfect skin to make it in Hollywood.
I’ve always dreamed of being a TV actress, but I know I’d have to compromise most of my morals, allow myself to be treated like crap, and lose twenty to thirty pounds to land any sort of job.
This was an interesting and very true list, and it gave me an opportunity to review my list of requirements for male/female characters on TV (other media are a different story).
* It always bugs me that all female characters ever look like they’re in their twenties, so I judge a female character poorly if she looks to be in her twenties. I like older actresses.
* If she’s anything above a size 4, I automatically get distracted and start irrationally judging her for the worse. The same if they’re below a size zero.
* Bad teeth are bad.
* She has to have nice boobs. But she shouldn’t show them off.
* She can’t dress too scantily or I stop suspending my disbelief. (It’s hard for me to believe in Seven of Nine, for example. Even though she’s an interesting character.)
* She has to have a good character with a well-developed past or I stop paying attention to her.
These are generally my automatic requirements for females in TV series. Here are mine for males:
* They have to be smart or very skilled. If they’re not smart, I immediately disregard them.
* Honesty and sincerity are required.
* They have to be complex.
Weird that I have all these physical requirements for female roles on TV and my requirements for male roles are mind-based. I think it’s because if females don’t fit the requirements I’ve listed, they look very out of place and are therefore distracting. I think the other thing is that I feel like if they aren’t traditionally attractive, they have no right to be there (I’m not sure where this comes from). At the same time, I’m desperate for TV shows to include “unattractive” females in important roles. It’s a weird dichotomy in my brain between my social conditioning and my desire for equality between the sexes.
It also bugs me that every character (be they male or female) on practically every show is unmarried. And they’re all between 25 and 50. Why is everyone single??
Sara(Quote) (Reply)
Actually, Sara, LOADS of actors have “terrible” skin – lots of facial bumps, acne scars, etc. This became really obvious after they started filming digitally and transferring film onto DVDs, and it was like WHOA look at the flaws! I remember this vividly, because I have skin problems myself and it made me feel SO much more beautiful to realize all these years, they couldn’t find *that* many people with flawless skin, they’d just been covering it with makeup, lighting and good cinematography. And now that digital is established, they’re usually able to mask it once more – but trust me, they don’t have flawless skin.
Except for Jada Pinkett Smith. I saw her once at a nightclub under good enough lighting to reveal bumps or irregularities, and lord have mercy, her cheeks look like velvet.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I think it’s more okay for actors to have bad skin than it is for actresses… I’m thinking of how wrinkly Clooney’s gotten, House’s face in general, Edward James Olmos, etc.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
Maria, that sounds right. You never see visible acne scars on actresses. And while signs of aging are discouraged for men as well as women in acting, the men frequently continue getting good roles despite it.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I can think of a grand total of two actresses with facial scars: Tina Fey and Gina Carano. Note that both are a) absolutely gorgeous, and b) started acting after becoming famous in another field (Fey as a writer, Carano as a mixed martial arts champion).
Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
I thought Sharon Stone had a large scar across her throat (which she’s claimed was due to a childhood accident on a talk show I was watching). She usually covered it up off-set with a scarf.
Gategrrl(Quote) (Reply)
I’m glad to have come across this post. You’re right. And I think it is a good thing that we’re beginning to sense people actually getting angry about it. This kind of anger can shift our collective consciousness, and motivate us to change things.
But there are only two ways to actively change this:
1. Personally create work that showcases women as real-life individuals with worthy stories
and/or
2. $upport work that aligns with those interests. Your pocketbook is your loudest voice.
Heather(Quote) (Reply)
Hate to burst your bubble, but actually those are less effective than you think:
(1) Such works will be shunted into the “indie” section, where they are understood to represent some weird little niche, and not apply in any way to the status quo, because everyone knows that’s impossible, anyway.
(2) Why women can’t vote with their dollars explains why our choices are also deliberately interpreted to support that the status quo is the only way of doing things. Also, how can you support work that aligns with your interests if no mainstream films do so? Sure, you can go see indies, but see #1.
I don’t mean to be discouraging. We just get this response a lot and, unfortunately, it’s the naive attitude that brought me to Hollywood, and I learned the hard way how wrong I was. I think actually the collective consciousness shifting anger might do more good, since a lot of film pros – particularly younger ones who will be more powerful in a few years – are reading the internet to get the pulse of the audience.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I’m watching Silent Library: Celebrity Edition (although the people they get for that show barely constitute celeb status, IMHO) and the cast of the ATROCIOUS MTV show “The Hard Times of RJ Berger” are on there. All the male cast members look like basement-dwelling trolls (except for one generically handsome “jocky” guy) and the two female cast members adhere COMPLETELY to the requirements you listed…(why didn’t they have the “ugly” girl as a contestant? And by “ugly” I mean vaguely Asian-looking and not a size 0)
Why am I still enraged by this shit? V_V
Casey(Quote) (Reply)
I know this post is two years old and you’ll probably never see this – I was just spelunking through the archives, being a relatively new arrival here – but your post literally made me gasp. Me too!!
I have no idea why I was so surprised – as Scarlett pointed out, Alyson has a huge cult following. But…still! I’ve had a massive crush on her since I used to watch Buffy as a teen. I absolutely adore that woman. So very beautiful.
Funnily enough, I’ve got to agree with the comments on Gillian Anderson, too! With Alyson, it was more to do with her being quirky and cute and peppy and smart. With Gillian, it was the fact that she played a smart, cool, totally competent character. I remember this one random scene where some incidental young street thug sees her as easy prey, and is then slammed into a hammerlock by the trained special agent, having “FBI, motherfucker!” (or something like that) screamed at him. Dude practically wet himself. So fucking awesome.
Pumpkin(Quote) (Reply)
Oh, shoot. I goofed up and hit the wrong reply button. My post above was meant for you (Patrick), but now I’ve gone and confused SunlessNick.
Pumpkin(Quote) (Reply)
Oops! That comment was aimed at Patrick, the fellow admirer of Alyson Hannigan. Although I just noticed you mentioned Freema Agyeman, who gets a hells yeah from me. Loved her on Doctor Who.
Pumpkin(Quote) (Reply)
I feel like we might be starting to move this direction. (It’s still hugely imbalanced, and the standards of attractiveness are still ones that empower men and diminish women). Things like the casting of The Hunger Games, and the handful of action movies about A Blond Guy (like the Star Trek reboot, and… was Avatar dude blond? I don’t remember or care), kinda give me the impression that forgettably-aesthetically-pleasing actors are on the rise. Part of it could just be that B-movies and mid budget action/teen movies have always trended towards the bland and sexy, but those types of movies also seem to be gaining respectability.
It also might partly be that I’m disappointed that a book for young people is being adapted into a movie for young people instead of exactly what I would want it to be, but I’m pretty annoyed at the casting of teenagers Gale and Peeta, a scrawny, malnourished, hunter, and the slightly pudgy son of a baker, as shiny, buff 20 somethings.
I blame Twilight for that one.
Quib(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
{ 7 trackbacks }