Glamour Magazine Promises To Change Their Skinny Ways
Posted by: Erin Flaherty
Filed in:
entertainment, video
4:00PM, Thursday October 1st 2009
Remember when plus-size model Lizzie Miller appeared in Glamour magazine’s September issue and caused a s**t storm of comments and letters and the general outcry of ladymag purveyors saying “Yes! Thank you! Finally!”? We also knew the magazine was planning on shooting a spread of Miller alongside other curvy ladies, including one of our heroines, Crystal Renn, and subscribers got the issue today! (Amelia reports that the photos are really, really pretty.) The crew guested on “Ellen” today and editor-in-chief Cindi Leive announced the magazine is making a commitment to showing more diversity (both in terms of size and ethnicity) in their glossy pages going forward. Only time will tell, but it’s a big step in the right direction, no? And with all the attention the mag is getting, look out for others to jump in on the action. As Cindi observes, ultimately, the fashion industry is about sales. So are magazines. Fine. If money (and people) talking is what it takes to make editors accept that women are sick of size-zero glorification, well, we’ll take it. [Ellen]
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
bethlynn00
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 03:02 pm: [report]
Unfortunately I don’t think this “trend” will last. I would love to see more diversity in models, but like everyone says they are just like moving clothes hangers, that’s how designers and mags like it, so I think this will sadly pass…
Jenn27549
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 03:39 pm: [report]
And not ALL women are quote: sick of size-zero glorification.
bethlynn00
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 03:44 pm: [report]
@ Jenn27549: I agree, I mean by trying to uplift women who are not a size 0 or 2, we should not be bashing those who are a size 0 or 2. I think the focus should just be on having a variety of women represented to represent what women look like, which means a variety of shapes and sizes.
Jenn27549
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:19 pm: [report]
Exactly! It often comes across on this site as if there is no way to be a size 0-4 without starving yourself or some other unhealthy means. But some people are born that way, just as some people are born with larger frames and will never be below a size 10 no matter what they do. This site, and society as a whole, seems to accept the “born that way” explanation for bigger women but not for smaller women. Does anyone really think Eva Longoria Parker could ever be plus-sized? She may work out to stay as skinny as she is, but I think that even on a diet of pure lard she’s be lucky to get past a size 4.
canadiancutie
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:26 pm: [report]
Erin, so what you’re telling me is, I will now be subscribing to Glamour.
Molly Jean
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:32 pm: [report]
Jenn27549, thank you for pointing out the double standard with the “born that way” mentality.
Yes, I absolutely agree diversity should be represented in magazines (especially where race & age are concerned). And look, I accept that I might sound like a bitch for saying this but many “average” size 10/12/18/20/whatever women are not healthy. They are that size because of inactivity, poor diet, stress, etc, & I do think that glorifying certain sizes could have a negative impact.
Regularizing unhealthy weights & sizes (& what people should realize is that just because something has become “average” doesn’t mean it is good) is bad. I just have a problem with the fact that in department stores it’s easier for me to find a size 14 than the size 2 I need. There is something wrong with that. I just wish the focus was on health & not size. Also, I hope diversity in race & age catches on because of this.
fallonthecity
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:40 pm: [report]
@Jenn & bethlynn: I agree that often there is backlash from people frustrated by the gold standard of beauty that’s set by the fancy-fashion industry and that can be insulting to naturally thin women, but I see nothing here that bashes thin women. “Sick of size-zero glorification” doesn’t mean anyone’s sick of size zero women… just sick of the idea that size zero or two should the gold standard for everyone.
Molly Jean
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:49 pm: [report]
@fallonthecity: I understand that we are talking about “size-zero glorification” here in terms of fashion mags but I feel like the opposite is true in terms of everyday life. Maybe not by glorifying an unhealthy lifestyle, but by perpetuating the idea that it’s OK.
canadiancutie
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:51 pm: [report]
I said it before and I’ll say it again: that Lizzie chick is NOT fat or even overweight from what I can see. And that being the case, how the hell did she get someone to give her a job in the modelling industry? Unless you’re a little bit fat or way too skinny, you simply cannot get work in that industry. You’d better be able to sing.
fallonthecity
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 10:03 pm: [report]
@Molly Jean: Maybe I misunderstand, but I don’t see any apparently unhealthy models here. And in terms of “everyday life,” we still live in a diet culture, and even though you hear a lot of negativity about women starving themselves skinny… some of them do, and that’s a problem. But I don’t think that printing photos of women with different body types will perpetuate any type of unhealthy lifestyle…
Molly Jean
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 10:13 pm: [report]
@fallonthecity: true about the dangers of starving oneself, but I’m willing to bet there are more overweight/unhealthy women out there. In the last decade I think it’s become a huge problem that is being reinforced by this whole “average” woman mentality.
fallonthecity
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 10:25 pm: [report]
@Molly Jean, I somehow missed your first post, just now read it. I think it’s quite presumptuous of you to assume that any woman is unhealthy based solely on her size. There is significant evidence that the morbidly obese are very prone to health problems, but nobody has proven that fat in itself is not healthy. So, at 5’8” I’m a size 14. I don’t know what percentage body fat I have, and I don’t know what I weigh. I do know that at my recent checkup, my blood pressure, cholesterol, and pulse rate were “perfect” according to my doctor. I jog 3 times a week and I eat pretty well. Am I in prime athletic condition? No. But I may well be healthier than many size 2 women, depending on their diets and habits. Size cannot be a major indicator of health.
My opinion differs from yours on weight being a huge problem, but either way—shaming larger (“average”) women by excluding them from representation in fashion media will not fix it, or slow it, or do anything at all about it. The fact is that larger women exist at varying levels of health, and they should all be able to buy pretty clothes, and not have their “health” determined at a glance by a stranger.
I do have to say that I agree that the “average woman” thing can be pretty damaging, but maybe for different reasons. I would rather that women were represented as a very diverse set of individuals. Having all size 12 models in magazines is no less damaging than having all size 2 models.
bumbler
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 10:27 pm: [report]
@fallon you sound healthier than me at 5’7 113lbs. Sigh I need to exercise more.
Molly Jean
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 10:51 pm: [report]
@fallonthecity: I was about to hit the sack, but I felt compelled to respond. Look, I apologize if I offended you - it was not my intention. Kudos for being in such great shape (& even though I’m supposed to be all heated from your comment, I’m actually just really really excited that another frisky reader/commenter is a runner! Isn’t running awesome?!).
OK, back to business…I get it. Size does not indicate health all the time. But it very often does. There just isn’t a way around it.
Look, America has a weight problem & it’s a very complicated one. I have no doubt Glamour is coming from a very positive place in doing this, but I just think it smooths over the issue. It simplifies it & approaches it in a shallow, possibly harmful way.
I stick by my original worry that promoting plus size as normal is harmful.
canadiancutie
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 11:02 pm: [report]
Molly Jean,
You stated size very often dictates health. One statistic I think you should look at is that smokers weigh significantly less on average than nonsmokers at all ages. Are they healthier?
This just came to mind because my girlfriend/co-worker, whose BMI is 17.6 (and somehow, she manages to have massive love handles and still have hips…. go figure. Guess we are all shaped differently) told me today at work that she just took up exercising two days ago and she’s hurting. She also smokes weed every night before bed. No cigarettes though.
My BMI is 23. - something. So I guess as a lifelong moderate exerciser who has never smoked a single cigarette or joint or been drunk once in my life, I can expect a reduced lifespan.
Just sayin’ is all.
canadiancutie
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 11:09 pm: [report]
The problem with “size” is that it does not always differentiate muscle mass and actual fat. I spoke to a plastic surgeon about getting my 24-inch thighs lipo’ed and she straight-up told me there’s not enough fat on them to make a significant difference/worth my money. They are mostly muscle. People have different body compositions, different density. For the most part though, the women in that video did not look grossly overweight to me. I thought the camera was supposed to add 10 pounds?
I think, to be honest, I would have a problem with a whole bunch of grossly overweight women in the media becoming standard practise, too. I just don’t like the way the media makes no room for the mediums (or when they do, they often call them fat and guilt them into losing weight.)
canadiancutie
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 11:11 pm: [report]
Maybe they look fairly not-plus-size because they’re tall and therefore it is better distributed than it would be on a woman who is 5’3”?
fallonthecity
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 11:11 pm: [report]
@Molly Jean: Just want to quickly clarify that I’m not offended, and I didn’t intend for my comment to offend or antagonize you. I just feel it’s important to discuss different viewpoints on things like this. I recognize that it is unlikely that I will change your mind that size is an indicator of health. I’m totally agreeing that promoting anything as a “normal” is very bad for everyone. And yay! for running. I do enjoy it.
@canadiancutie: I did not know that smokers statistically weigh less than non-smokers. Interesting point!
IrishErin
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 11:20 pm: [report]
@fallonthecity Ever wondered why most models chain smoke?
Molly Jean
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 11:23 pm: [report]
canadiancutie: You made some very good points. I’m not saying all people of a certain size are unhealthy. I’m saying many are. And not all magazine readers are as intelligent as you seem to be. I worry that people might continue in a direction that is not healthy for their body by seeing these images…I don’t know if I’m articulating myself adequately here, but I do think there are very big problems with this idea.
Oh, well, goodnight all!
Shriekback68
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 12:59 am: [report]
Speaking as a man, let me say this: we do NOT think the “anorexic” look is sexy! Every other man I know thinks that such a body type is intensely unattractive. I think that this look is cultivated for other WOMEN, not men.
fallonthecity
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 05:56 am: [report]
@IrishErin: actually… I’ve never known any models, so I didn’t even know most of them did.
canadiancutie
wrote on October 2 2009 @ 07:38 am: [report]
Molly Jean, I get where you’re coming from. Still, I can’t imagine a little balance (in magazines) is a bad thing. They still have TV and movies to make them feel fat.
angel001717
wrote on October 10 2009 @ 01:59 am: [report]
first of all ~ a size 12 is not plus size. they dont even sell it in many stores with only “plus sizes” it is only considered so in the fashion world. and many “plus size models” are actually between an 8 and 12. not even close to a real person who is refered to as plus size.
diversity is a fact of life and what this country was founded on. got a problem with it? move somewhere else.
Young20Something
wrote on October 12 2009 @ 11:26 am: [report]
This juxtaposition of media stances make a good point about the whole issue: http://tinyurl.com/ykrs4ny However, I personally believe that high fashion has no place for plus-sized models. It may also encourage society to accept being overweight as acceptable.