Why beauty standards are not worth following

1900s

Women:

  • hourglass figure.
  • tiny waist, often modified by a corset.
  • full chest, and broad hips.

Men:

  • wide waist.
  • generous-sized stomach.

Both these traits were considered a sign of wealth and the ability to afford food.

1920s

Women:

  • boyish figure.
  • thin.
  • flat-chested.

Men:

  • athletic.
  • muscular.
  • thin.
 
 

1940s

Women:

  • curvy.
  • broad shoulders.
  • muscular.

Because of the influence of the war on beauty standards.

Men:

  • military-inspired figures.
  •  strong.
  • vigorous.

1960s

Women:

  • skinny.
  • long, slim legs.
  • adolescent physique.

Men:

  • slender.
  • androgynous.
  • not muscular.
 

1980s

Women:

  • athletic.
  • hourglass figure with broad hips and shoulders.
  • curvy and fit at the same time.

Men:

  • lean.
  • very muscular.
  • wide chest and shoulders.

2000s

Women:

  • flat stomach.
  • tight gap.
  • “healthy” skinny.

Men:

  • fit.
  • muscular but lean.
  • athletic.
 

Observing the shift of body standards through the decades allows reflection on the instability and transitory nature of these stereotypes we associate with body image. What is the point of obsessing over an ideal physique that will change in a couple of years?