NY Mag weighed in on the V Magazine’s Size Issue. Rather light on debate, its author seems to conflates a civil tone with holding an alternate viewpoint. There is the familiar chow chow of “What about the normal women?” However, in this case “normal” means sizes 4 – 10 and those of us existing outside these parameters are shit out of luck.
A London stylist states:
It’s such an extreme response to the size-zero hoopla.
I think all women want to see images of healthy girls, not women who are emaciated. But, realistically I don’t think many women aspire to be a size 18, either. I don’t think using outsize models is really the way to change perceptions — it’s just an extreme volt-face.
A pretty bold statement from someone too shy to give their name. On a seemingly unrelated note: my parents did in fact name me Snarky’s, but I’ll confess “Machine” is a stage name.
Anyway, back to the post currently in progress …
No, no, no, Anonymous Stylist, you’ve got it all wrong. They’re selling carrots, not strings. It’s the carrot does the enticing not the string it’s attached to. And by carrots I mean wealth, health, romance and acceptance. String fixation is wonderful bonus. But make no mistake they’re in the carrot business.
The author steps up to the mic:
Fast’s show wouldn’t have gotten the same publicity without those girls. And of course big can be beautiful — the industry has shown us that in many ways for years. But can average girls be beautiful, too? If designers used normal-size 6 or 8 girls in shows and magazines shot them for editorials, would it receive the same publicity? Or perhaps not, because the difference wouldn’t be striking enough to warrant it?
Clearly the real victims here are the “hollywood chubby”. Those unsung heroes of sizes 4 – 10, who are being dismissed courtesy of an industry that’s really hot for exploration of the extremes at the moment.
Has this author not seen what size six looks like on a 5’2 person? Clearly, there is a warped perception of what those sizes look like on variety of bodies. All the hand wringing is a waste of effort though. Believe me, you put a 5’0 size stretch size ten hourglass shape next to a 5’9 model and the difference is going to be “striking”.
Trust me, I’ve done the legwork.
Of course that’s not what’s going here. Framing the issue in this manner still vilifies fat bodies, but with a clever twist. Now fat bodies act in collusion with thin bodies to push all those “normal” sized bodies out on their “normal” sizes asses. Fat bodies given serious consideration in fashion editorials are still viewed as provocative and the editors are still accused of resorting to “gimmicks” – a valid criticism in some cases, but often works just as well as a distraction – so the likelihood of this author’s nightmare vision of fat and thin rising up against the “normal” seems pretty ridiculous.
Do we need to see everything on the size spectrum? Of course, but I take issue with the notion that sizes in the so-called “normal” range lack representation. They are represented – hello, that’s what the term “normal” implies based on its use here – and if this author feels otherwise, then perhaps a new label to describe them is in order. Of course not manufacturing a new class of “victims” from a group who enjoy a fair amount of privilege as it relates to size would probably be a better idea.