For allowing me to emerge from having read an article in a fashion magazine without suddenly finding myself drowning in a pool of obsessions on the 63 physical flaws I need to get back to feeling self-conscious about.
One interesting fact: the modeling industry considers a model to be in the "Plus Size" category if she is over a size 6. That is just nauseating. In contrast, the highest selling size is 14. I am about a 10 on bottom and a 6 or 8 on top. I have never been thin, but I wouldn't say that I have to shop in the especially demeaning "Plus Size" departments either.
I think that Kate Harding on Jezebel sums it up best:
Truly accepting and supporting body diversity doesn't mean making assumptions about the health of size 0s or size 18s, 24s, 30s, what-have-you, and it definitely doesn't mean saying that women of some sizes shouldn't get clothes. (She also said earlier that "they shouldn't even make clothes" as small as size 0.) I understand that you don't want to be seen as supporting unhealthy or self-destructive behavior, but you can be against self-harm and pro-health without reinforcing the ideas that A) those who fail to maximize their own health potential to the greatest possible extent are less deserving than others, and B) there is a set range of "healthy" sizes — even if the one you would set is more generous than that of, say, most women's magazines — and anyone who falls outside it is suspect (see A).
But the Naked Fat Girl Extravaganza itself is still far from diverse by any reasonable standard. One woman of color, one maybe size 16, and a bunch of women who are conventionally beautiful and traditionally feminine-looking, despite being, you know, somewhere around the size of the average American woman (only much taller). As I said before, it's a good effort, and I'm going to go buy the issue to show my support. But let's not kid ourselves — this isn't a revolution. Yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment