As a huge fan of the mesmerizing Joan Holloway Harris on Mad Men, I read Christina Hendricks’s cover story for New York Magazine with great interest. And I was particularly struck by the actress’s insight when it came to all the talk about her much-talked-about curves.

Actress Christina Hendricks poses for New York Magazine's Spring Fashion issue, February 14, 2010. (Courtesy of NYMag.com)

“It kind of hurt my feelings at first,” she said. “Anytime someone talks about your figure constantly, you get nervous, you get really self-conscious. I was working my butt off on the show, and then all anyone was talking about was my body!”

I hope if she reads this, she forgives me for rehashing the territory she loathes so much.

I’m amazed that curvaceousness is so revolutionary in 2010 that her considerable talent is eclipsed by her considerable physical assets. Is anyone else saddened by that? Moreover, why should anyone be surprised that curves can be so attention-grabbing and — dare I say — hot?

The answer isn’t immediately obvious. Not to discount Ms. Hendricks’s good looks, but buxom beauties are truly nothing novel. For example, Peter Paul Reubens began painting his famously full-figured women in the late 1500s. Even among celebrities, the admiration for Ms. Hendricks’s most famous predecessor, Marilyn Monroe, has never fallen by the wayside.

All the attention may have more to do with how Ms. Hendricks’s beauty is so far outside the norm of the standard and immediately recognizable Hollywood look that has developed over the last few decades. With her creamy pale skin and contrasting red hair, Ms. Hendricks’s appeal may have more to do with a long-overdue cultural rejection of indistinguishable tan, blonde, and waif-like starlets. She is, for lack of a more precise word, a classic bombshell on par with Bettie Page Jean Harlow.

No wonder Ms. Hendricks has found success in a period piece like Mad Men.

Granted, not all of the commentary has been positive. Perplexingly, most of the criticism of her curvaceousness has come from other women. The comments section of the New York Magazine article yields less-than-charitable takes on her proportions. “If she wants to keep her body out of discussion she should dress less like a playboy bunny [sic],” writes a representative example from a commenter named Chika028.

Why should this be? I assumed that after years of being force-fed the aspirationally thin, consumers of celebrity culture would be more inclined to instigate a backlash. But the argument seems to be that one unattainable body ideal (the ruler figure) is being traded for another (an extreme hip-to-waist ratio).

Here’s a proposal: détente. Cease fire, everyone. Call me Polyanna but there’s room for everyone in the beauty brigade.