I agree with you TJ, the cow you have pictured is in my opinion, very feminine.... and she looks very functional as well.
Another question.... why is there such a difference in opinion between show oriented breeders and commercial breeders in regards to what a good female should look like. It seems to me that, at the end of the day, we all are a part of a beef industry and a good cow should be a good cow no matter if she has ever seen a halter or not. Of course there will be enviromental differences in what an optimum cow looks like where you live, but the main differences should mainly be in mature size, with much lesser differences in body shape. That is, a rancher in Utah will describe his perfect cow much differently than a breeder in Indiana, but shouldn't the main difference be in their size? I would think that both of these cattlemen would want cows that have lots of capacity, good udders, good feet and legs etc etc etc. One major difference may be in the amount of milk each cow provides.
In the past few years, I have heard more talk at cattle shows about structural soundness than I have ever heard before. If this is really something that everyone is striving for, why doesn't the ideal show animal move closer ( in both type and structure) to what the commercial industry is striving towards. Maybe they are moving closer together, and if they are, then we should see many more show winning females that become major league ,real world, breeding machines. I see lots of comments on this and other boards, that suggest that show cattle can't make it in the real world. Personally, I think there are many that can't, but there are also some that can. If this is the case, why are the selection criteria in the show ring not changing?
I have asked more than a few questions here ... so give me your thoughts. I would also be interested in your thoughts on how show ring trends are decided. Who makes the decisions that this year we need to downsize frame or increase frame, etc etc etc?