Why the Plus-Size Model in Glamour Isn't Really Progress

By now you've already heard: Based on the thunderous applause for the three-inch photograph of plus-size model Lizzi Miller on p.194 of September's Glamour, the magazine is now going to feature naked plus-size models in the November issue. I don't see this as progress.

It's true that Lizzi Miller’s photo underscores just how freakishly tall and whippet-thin standard models are. But the unattainable silhouettes of the birds correspond perfectly to the unattainable lifestyle that is promoted between the covers. And, personally, I don't like facts mingling with fiction. When women's magazines get out of the ad business—when journalism trumps mere product placement—then yes, I'll embrace Susan Meiselas-style documentary fashion spreads instead of fantasy productions.

The psychological stress incurred by a bombardment of impossible physical standards runs deep. I've watched two people close to me nearly die of starvation, and the number of women I know with disordered eating is too high to count. But rather than greet Lizzi Miller as progress I think we should be asking: Is it wise to seek redress from a mainstream publication? Furthermore, why isn't anybody questioning the merits of "regular" women demanding to see representation of themselves everywhere? Why must everything be a mirror? Narcissism, it appears, isn't just a Beautiful People problem. It runs rampant among the fat, the short, and the not-young too.

Tags: body diversity, glamour magazine, lizzie miller, plus size models

VIEW THIS CONVERSATION

Erika Kawalek is a New York-based journalist and author of the forthcoming fashion chronicle, Ragpicker.

Comments

weird logic

By: closetpuritan | Thu, 09/10/2009 - 14:36

"This is what I want to see on the pages of Glamour: TRULY healthy women. Not size anorexia, but not size 12+ either. I want to see size 2 and 4. I want to see people being HONEST about what's healthy."

Well, I'm not sure it's "honest" to make size 2 or 4 the ideal of what's healthy, either. Even going by BMI "ideal weights", I don't think that 2 and 4 would be the healthiest possible size unless you were pretty short, which most models are not. And being less than your "ideal weight" isn't any heathier than being more than your "ideal weight".

"If the body image of someone who is thin is destructive, why are there so many fat people in the US?"
Well, I have a few guesses:
1. It is primarily mentally destructive.
2. It encourages women at the middle of the "healthy" range or heavier to use unhealthy rapid-weight-loss strategies starting in their teens, which leads to unhealthy yo-yo-ing of weight, slowed metabolism, and therefore more difficulty keeping off weight for the rest of their lives.
3. Impossible standards lead to a "why bother?" mentality in anyone who is in the middle of the "healthy" range or higher.
4. Impossible standards lead to self-hatred that leads to emotional eating and weight gain.

And, yes, these standards are "impossible" for most women, given that it is common for models to spend 8 hours a day exercising (leaving out their diets; it takes extraordinary motivation to maintain a diet where your body thinks you're starving for any length of time). It is practically impossible for a woman with a full-time (non-modeling-related) job to fit that in, especially if she has kids.

Narcissism? Really?

By: closetpuritan | Thu, 09/10/2009 - 14:13

Wanting to occasionally see women whose body type vaguely resembles yours = narcissism? As someone who has actually had a coworker with apparent Narcissistic Personality Disorder, this kind of hyperbole seems completely ridiculous to me.

What I See and Want to See

By: ellekay13 | Tue, 09/08/2009 - 20:10

When I see the "average" American, I see: a higher risk for diabetes, heart problems, breast cancer, death from breast cancer...etc. I see normalization of something that can actually be JUST AS UNHEALTHY as being too thin (if not more unhealthy). Why do we want Glamour (and other mags) to promote THAT?? So that the "average" American can pretend that those health problems will never catch up to her? So that she can remain in denial and pretend that she lives a "healthy" lifestyle?

This is what I want to see on the pages of Glamour: TRULY healthy women. Not size anorexia, but not size 12+ either. I want to see size 2 and 4. I want to see people being HONEST about what's healthy.

eye candy

By: boredwell | Sat, 09/05/2009 - 16:49

Simply put: most people don't want to pick up a publication and see themselves reflected realistically. Magazines sell entertainment and fantasy. Whether it's that slick glossy filled with fabulous travel destinations or a thick color step-by-step on how to concoct mouth-watering recipes never mind the expense of those ingredients,multitasking and days invovled shopping,chopping and preparing. When I buy a fashion magazine I admit I look for the unattainable - jewels, clothes, Birkin bag and Louboutin pumps: I like to feel that for a moment I'm carefree, rich and living large like one of the gals in the Sex and the City quartet. To heck with the "normal" model, the meal-in-30-minutes or the quick makeover. When I close that mag all I want to do is dream!

completely ridiculous

By: teaspoon | Fri, 09/04/2009 - 07:37

Oh, those "regular" women; how silly they are to want to be represented in public and in the media! They should just shut up and put up with the status quo! Following that logic, should we leave the government to the rich white men? I think that allowing for body diversity in a women's magazine IS a positive step. There is no such thing as a "regular" woman. Every woman is gifted with unique features that may represent a certain body type, but that is not representative of all women. I would love to see woman of all races, heights, and sizes represented in magazines/media.

This is the worst thing I've ever read on Double X

By: Scrivener | Thu, 09/03/2009 - 02:53

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read on Double X.

By Kawalek's logic, we shouldn't see more realistic models as progress because Glamour will still feature an "unattainable lifestyle"--that is, articles that are more advertising than real editorial.

By this logic, we shouldn't change anything EVER. After all, it will only be an imperfect and incremental change, right? Why bother?

Kawalek goes on to ask whether it is "wise to seek redress from a mainstream publication?"

How else does she suppose that we might change the unrealistic (and, she admits, destructive) images of women put forward by the mainstream?

But these two arguments are eclipsed by the colossal boneheadedness of her final argument:

"why isn't anybody questioning the merits of 'regular' women demanding to see representation of themselves everywhere? [...] Narcissism, it appears, isn't just a Beautiful People problem. It runs rampant among the fat, the short, and the not-young too."

By this logic, lauding a change to slightly more realistic models in one mainstream magazine is the same as "demanding... representation... everywhere." So which is it? Is this a change so small it isn't worth calling progress, or a greedy and intemperate demand for a complete overhaul of our culture to reflect average women? (As if there is anything narcissistic about asking that *some* of the images of women in mainstream media be a little more diverse!) One really can't (or shouldn't) try to make both arguments in the same piece.

Kudos to all the women

By: mahkara | Wed, 09/02/2009 - 16:22

Kudos to all the women writing how offensive "freakish" is, particularly with regards to "freakishly tall". Ugh, should I refer to someone under 5'4" as "deformed" or "stunted"?

I'd agree that it would be nice to see models to go weights that are healthy for adult women (i.e. BMIs >18.5). But I also design clothing and costumes, so I have some sympathy for designers. Sad but true, clothing tends to look better on a lanky frame, so take an equally pretty size 8 who's 5'4", and a size 6 who is 5'11", guess who I'd choose to show on? Now, ideally a magazine would show multiple body types just as what looks good on a 5'11", size 0 isn't the same as what would look good on a 5'4" size 12. But most fashion spreads aren't about reality, and many (smaller) houses can only afford to put out so many sample sizes (i.e. one size 4, not a huge range to suit the whims of any editor). And they make in smaller sizes as they're cheaper (less cloth) and tend to make the clothing look better. So, surprise, surprise, models are all the same size and are tall and skinny. Besides, anyone basing her concept of reality on them has a rather skewed perspective. (And it certainly hasn't caused anyone I know to starve to death...or in many cases even adopt a sensible diet.)

Plus Size?

By: leslielawson | Wed, 09/02/2009 - 16:20

Maybe I missed the change, but when did a size 12 become Plus Size? Probably about the same time that size 0 came into existence.

some of us are tall

By: jheri | Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:41

"Freakishly tall" bothers me. I'm 190 cm, which is just under 6'3. I have a friend who is 200 cm tall. We are just women and not freaks. It was difficult as a teenager, but you get used to your body and can come to be very happy with yourself.

I don't think most women need to have visual representations who look just like themselves. I see clothing on many models and know it would be too short for me, but my mind can put together what it might look like with some tailoring just as an average sized woman can visualize what something might look like on her.

And thin.

I'm also very thin. It is horrible that some women try for body types that are unhealthy and the starvation you sometimes see is wrong, but at the same time look how many people are obese in the US (I live in Denmark and few people are heavy). If the body image of someone who is thin is destructive, why are there so many fat people in the US?

So I don't care what images look like. They are just abstractions. What I would like to see is women finding healthy lifestyles that work with their bodies. Sure I will look at the Victoria Secret site - I'll never look like them because I am too thin and too tall - but it is still fun to look and think about how some things might work on me.

It's deplorable that women

By: fsilber | Wed, 09/02/2009 - 13:31

It's deplorable that women should harm their health trying to become as thin as fashion models. That said, you cannot deny that _lots_ of women are way fatter than necessary -- women who could be both hotter and healthy if they lost a few pounds.