Fashion
Glamour's Plus Sized Photo Shoot: Real Change, or Trend?
by Susan Wagner

In September, Glamour magazine included a small photo of model Lizzi Miller. The photo wasn't on the cover, or even in a prominent spread; instead, it was tucked away on page 194, next to a piece about body image titled "What Everyone But You Sees About Your Body." The response, of course, was overwhelming; women were enthralled by Miller's size 12-14 body, particularly her tummy. 

Because she had a tummy, which was remarkable for a model in a fashion magazine.

Jezebel's Margaret Hartman appreciated Glamour's attempt to include real women, but hesitantly:

But still, being the ladymag with the most body diversity isn't that hard when your competition is Vogue. Both pictures of Miller were included in articles about body acceptance and May's plus-size swimsuit spread was a rarity. Every other model featured in this month's Glamour was very thin. Even "What Everyone But You Sees About Your Body" starts out with the standard photo of a perfectly-proportioned model staring at herself in the mirror with a slight frown, which doesn't exactly depict the average reader's issues with her body. Any shot of body confidence readers got from seeing a woman with an average-sized body presented as sexy is quickly neutralized by the magazine's other 295 pages of diet tips, workout recommendations, and images of women with all their natural bumps and rolls airbrushed away.

Hartman is skeptical, though, that Glamour is really making a change, either in the magazine or in the fashion industry at large. After all, fashion media has a lot at stake here: "If magazines run more images like the one on page 194, women may internalize the idea that you can look sexy with messy hair, no clothes or accessories, and a layer of body fat and stop buying products to fix their natural yet somehow 'flawed' figures."

This month, Glamour is capitalizing on their new niche as the Fashion Magazine That Loves Plus Sized Girls: The November issue features a two page photo of seven plus-size models, all nude, and all looking fantastic. So is this a big leap forward, or a baby step?

There are two ways to think about this, from what I'm hearing: One is to say, hooray! Real women in a mainstream fashion magazine! Showing their real curves! Big leap forward!

But the other side is this: The fashion industry isn't serious about including real women; this is one spread in one issue of one magazine, not a change in the entire industry. Designer samples are still made only in size 2; magazines are still primarily filled with women who are taller and thinner than the rest of us. Two pages of girls who look sort of like us doesn't make up for two hundred pages of girls who look nothing like us.

And then there's the middle ground: Glamour is absolutely on the right track, and it's great to see women whose bones are fully covered by their flesh, but to call a size 12 a plus size is laughable. Let's see some size 18 or 20 models in the mainstream fashion magazines -- then we'll acknowledge a change.

Marie Clare seems to be outstripping Glamour in the real change department; the magazine has hired stylist Ashley Falcon to write a column for them.

I'm the most stylish among my friends. Growing up in Miami's tight-knit Cuban community, I was the girl everyone sought out for fashion advice, the one who transformed boring outfits into head-turning looks with the flick of a collar or the cinch of a belt. Of course, it surprised no one that I decided to pursue a career as a fashion stylist—though at 5'2" and 220 pounds, I'd need an elaborate pulley system and a can of Crisco to shimmy into the clothes I dress models in. Instead, I'm relegated to the plus-size racks, where trendy usually translates into "when's your due date" empire waists and cinch-sack drawstrings. It's not easy being chic, but it's an epic struggle when you're a big girl.

Falcon is savvy and funny and honest about her size; her column, unlike the Glamour photo spread, will effect real change.

BlogHer community member Venus Vision wrote an open letter to Glamour; for her, Lizzi Miller's appearance in the magazine was an affirmation that her body was beautiful.

What say you: Is the face of fashion changing, or are magazines like Glamour patronizing larger women? Are you happy with the images you see, or are you looking for something different?

Susan Wagner writes about pragmatic fashion at The Working Closet and chic suburban living at Friday Playdate.

Submitted by Susan Wagner (view blog) on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 7:37pm
Posted In

Comments

 

Plus size

How is size 12 not plus size? I assume you mean US size 12? (That's size 16 in UK/Australian sizes).

That's an above average size - a reasonable marker of where plus sizing begins. Depending on height and other factors, many women who are bigger than that are probably above what medical science deems to be a healthy body weight. They might be beautiful, intelligent, and wonderful human beings, but that's not the point when deciding whether or not they should model in a mainstream magazine (rather than in a catalogue catering for larger women).

I think fashion magazines should promote health. They should stop showing images of underweight women and promoting it as normal and beautiful. But is the solution really to start showing images of overweight women and promoting that as an ideal of beauty instead?

I realise that there is debate over the health aspects of weight but if we're going to draw a line at people being too skinny to model, we should also draw a line at the upper limit too.

Submitted by Arrietty on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 21:09
 

Why draw a line at all, anywhere?

What worries me is not that magazines are promoting "skinny" or "generous" or "busty" or "willowy" or whatever other shape you can think of.  What is worrying is that they are seen to be a benchmark of any kind at all.

Why should a collection of adverts on glossy pages have such an impact on our self image?  Is it possible for magazines to be entertaining and educational and reflecting a world that is closer to mine?  Where women are all kinds of ages, colours and abilities?

I'm less concerned about the shape of the women in these publications, than the role they play.  As long as they are essentially there to sell products - by manipulating our guilt, self hatred, wishful thinking, fear and insecurities of all kinds - things will be skewed.

 

 

Submitted by mashadutoit on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 23:44
 

Manipulating our guilt

I couldn't agree more. When I taught writing (many many years ago) I would ask students to think about how advertising worked; the basic premise of the unit was that ads do two things: They create fear and they create desire. I think the same is true of women's magazines, both the advertising and the editorial content -- they tell us to fear being fat and unstylish, and to desire to be thin and chic.

The Glamour layout -- and, I think, more so Marie Clare's hiring of Ashley Falcon to write a style column -- give the lie to that. Falcon is a size 18, but she is hip and stylish and knowelegable about how to help women look their best -- at any size.

I also think that if women saw more images in magazines that looked like them, it might actually create a desire to be healthier -- not skinnier, mind you, just healthier. The current images are so unrealistic for most of us (I am thin, but I am not Glamour cover model thin, for example, and I never will be, not without seriously damaging my body) that instead of being inspired to exercise and eat well and dress better, we give up because we will never look like that.

Friday Playdate

Submitted by Susan Wagner on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 04:36
 

I do agree

 If its possible for advertisements, (or any other part of a magazine, for that matter) to be informative rather than manipulative - how great would that be.  And seeing more images of people who look like you do, and are being portrayed in a positive way, can only be good -

 

 

Submitted by mashadutoit on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 04:45
 

Diversity

Yes, I agree that it would be great to see more diversity in magazines - diversity in size, shape, ethnicity, age. I just think we should be careful about glorifying extremes.

Submitted by Arrietty on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:04
 

Agreed

And thanks for clarifying, and for being so polite.

Friday Playdate

Submitted by Susan Wagner on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:24
 

It's about Height

As you mentioned, whether or not a size 12 is healthy depends on the height of the woman. If she's 5'9" a size 12 is very reasonable. It's obviously a different story if she's 5'1". The models in the magazines are more than likely 5'8" and above, and thus a size 12 would probably not be above average or unhealthy for their height.

Submitted by Brianne on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 16:00
 

Pleased but skeptical

I liked the Lizzi Miller photo, but I remain skeptical. I recall other campaigns like this one. For a while plus-sized model Emme was all the rage, for example. And while it's positive to see the inclusion of a diverse range of women, a few photos and some media buzz do not amount to real change. The more telling thing, for me, will be to see what Glamour does in future issues.

~ Amber

www.strocel.com

Submitted by AmberS on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 21:18
 

Doubt

I think it will only change if women stop buying magazines where anorexia is glorified and only buy mags where healthy women are featured

Otherwise I don't think it will change, no

Submitted by Lolah on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 03:53
 

Likely to be a passing fad

Seems like we go through these cycles. I think it's great for awareness to be raised, but I think beauty and style are always going to be subjective, as are weight and fitness. I wish we could all find more examples of people we identify with, I just don't think we can ever expect these magazines, or any publication, to be all things to all people.

 

Amanda

http://amandamagee.com

Submitted by mama2bna on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:07
 

I don't care what the models look like...

...I just want decent-looking clothes for a reasonable price.

Kathleen

http://www.technoearthmama.com

Submitted by kmcdade on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:13
 

Where is the middle of the spectrum

While I am pleased to see more diversity in magazines, I'm annoyed by the dichotomy.  It seems a model can either be a size two or plus sized.  It would be a nice change when the vast majority of healthy feminine shapes can be appreciated as opposed to our only options seeming to be under-fed with delicate little bird bones or "meat on her bones". 

 No wonder we have body issues in this country, "average" is hardly even represented.   "Average" is like a dirty word.  No one wants to be an "average" model.  There is a whole spectrum of us between skeletal and plus sized.

Submitted by AbiGrace on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:17
 

Not convinced

I fall somewhere toward the middle of the spectrum on this issue. While I'm pleased to see the spread, it's only because I see plus-sized models in magazines so rarely. At this point, those of us who want to see models like this will take what we can get.

I don't think a spread like this is going to affect real change because you'd never see plus-sized models in a magazine without making it about them being plus-sized. Put these women in a regular fashion spread, and don't print a word about "Celebrating your curves" or "Loving your body." When I see that, I'll believe these mags' standards of beauty are changing.

Submitted by cmartin82 on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:31
 

but a grain of sand

I think that subjects such as these that keep us talking about body types and beauty and shapes and sizes keep us from talking about what's really important- who we are as individuals. That we, as women are all unique and intelligent and beautiful in our own ways. A magazine showing a few average size women may be a start, but it is but a grain of sand in the battle that girls and women have to fight to find and retain self esteem in our culture, in which we are barraged with either negative or unrealistic female stereotypes.

What role models do we have as women? Take one the most powerful women in the world- Oprah as an example- she is powerful and hugely successful and what do magazines and press and people focus on? Her weight. it's not okay. and it is a double standard.

The Fashion industry does not have our best interests at heart. 

I am a counselor, I specialize in eating disorders and have for the past 10 years. Although I personally don’t believe that fashion magazines CAUSE eating disorders, I certainly do believe that they add fuel to the fire and that they seriously contribute to poor self esteem and body image issues. We ARE influenced by media and images, and the images in popular media are 98% unrealistic. These images are designed to cause insecurity. The diet, fashion and cosmetic industries make billions of dollars off of people who are trying to reach an unreachable and unreasonable standard. These magazines set up these impossible standards, provoke insecurity and then offer a “solution” through the products they advertise. 

I personally think that these magazines adding a few average size women in their pages is only another ploy to get us talking about them, and more to the point- BUYING them. It's insidious.

Submitted by Bryn on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:35
 

I don't want to be in magazines

I am most definitely plus-sized, but I don't want to model clothes that "need an elaborate pulley system and a can of Crisco" to get on, as Ashley Falcon said. What I do want is for the world to become a place where we celebrate fashion, not figures. Diversity, sure. But I don't think that I will, in my lifetime, see American society become such that I won't be embarrassed to stand next to my model-thin friends, or shop in a place whose sizes dare to rise above 6.

These wonderful designers that we all love are being supported by both the model-thin and the plus-sized and the everything-in-between. Don't we buy Marc Jacobs handbags no matter what size we are? Don't Jimmy Choos fit most every girl (regardless of whether we can afford them)? We support their work; it's time for designers - and the magazines that feature them - to support everysized women by designing for all of us.

Submitted by elizabethbake on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 11:54
 

It's a good start

That photo of Lizzie Miller in Glamour magazine was a good start. I think "regular" women really did feel validated and liberated when that photo was published. I'm looking forward to seeing more women of all shapes, sizes, ages and skin colors in fashion magazines.

----

Hire a Blogger

Social Media Services

Submitted by Vered on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 12:10
 

GLAMOUR EDITOR: Those seven naked models were
a size 6!

According to the editor of Glamour Magazine (in an interview w/ CNN) the seven naked models in the "plus size" photo were about a size 6!  Not sized 12!  These women were plus sized on in the modeling world; not in the real world.

The editor seemed to think it was a big move to include women who were about 4 sizes larger than the other models typically seen in magazines.

d.
www.TheSavvyGirls.com

Submitted by Deidre on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 12:24
 

I think you misunderstood ...

what Cindy Leive was saying. Here's the transcript from her interview with Campbell Brown (via CNN.com):

BROWN: What's amazing to me is that anything larger than a size six is considered plus size in the fashion world. And the vast majority of us are larger than a size six.

LEIVE: It's one of the bizarre realities of the modeling industry that once you're over a size six, you're considered a "plus- sized model." Of course, you're not actually a plus-sized human until you're size 14 and over, and there are very few plus-sized models who are. But nonetheless, the women who you see in our magazine are all working as so-called plus-sized models and they are four to six sizes larger than most models you see in magazines.

The models are not size six; they are size 12 - 14, which is six sizes larger than the largest models who would normally appear in a fashion magazine.

Friday Playdate

Submitted by Susan Wagner on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 17:25