A La ModeVogue's pathetic attempt at body-type diversity.
By Emily NussbaumPosted Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 3:36 PM ETDid somebody slip some E into the Condé Nast Evian supply? Who knows what the trigger was, but someone somewhere was gripped by a seizure of bodily noblesse oblige, and Vogue magazine managed to devote an entire issue to "Shape," producing a special celebration (to quote one subhead) of The Body Eclectic, complete with "figure flattering" fashion tips.
The result is less offensive than unintentionally hilarious, highlighting Vogue's version of a gorgeous panorama of womanhood—tall and skinny (6-foot model Eva Kubatova); short and skinny (5-foot-5-inch model Devon Aoki); pregnant and skinny (model Angela Marie Wilkerson); and good old-fashioned emaciated (a "lithe" 5-foot-11-inch, Size 4 Jacquetta Wheeler). Ah, diversity! For the fifth category, "curvy," they snagged legendary "large size" model Sophie Dahl—who recently slimmed down to a whopping Size 8/10.
Related on washingtonpost.com
Click
here for Entertainment's reviews, movie times, and upcoming movies guide.
Sorry for all the numbers, but they're necessary. For beneath the addled pro-diversity sloganeering, this issue is as statistically obsessed as Sports Illustrated. Vogue assigned profiles to writers the same "shape" as their subjects, and the result is like eavesdropping on the passive/aggressive chit-chat of an eating-disorder support group—complete with obsessive mentions of weights and measures and faux complaints about shopping in the children's section. There's a queasily jealous profile of Anne Heche by a queasily pregnant Rebecca Johnson and an anxious take on Laila Ali by former boxer Lynn Snowden Picket (who feels it necessary to note that unlike her muscular subject, the writer herself was 5 feet 8 inches "and a scant but socially desirable 120 pounds" when she boxed). Size 2 Lauren MacIntyre's profile of Size 0 figure skater Sasha Cohen abounds in anorexo-porn, purringly comparing her subject to a pearl and a rubber band, "just what was essential, with no unnecessary slack." Most risible is Eve MacSweeney's profile of Nigella Lawson, which portrays the "voluptuous" (read: normal-bodied) British TV chef as a shocking anarchist simply because she eats. "One look at Nigella demonstrating the joys of chewing on the fatty bones of a pork roast," warns MacSweeney, "and years of careful conditioning will start to come unstuck."
There is one actual "fat girl" in the terms of the magazine: A photo essay displays large-size model Kate Dillon, bare thighs akimbo, paired with a midget male in a tiny toy car—if freak-show calliope music could play from the spread, it would. The only type of heaviness that is actually acceptable in Vogue's universe is pregnancy, which itself is treated as a kind of nine-month fat suit experiment for the otherwise thin. And it gradually becomes clear that Vogue's insane taxonomy magically defines fat people (hell, oddly proportioned people!) out of existence: If "tall" and "short" and "pregnant" are body types, and Minnie Driver is "curvy," there's no need to admit the existence of the bottom-heavy, let alone try to dress the poor bastards.
It all leaves one longing for the elitist nastiness of the original magazine—which was at least an honest expression of fashionable values. All this populism is just … tacky.
Emily Nussbaum lives in New York; she writes for
Slate, the
New York Times, and
Nerve.
Notes From the Fray Editor:
We greatly enjoyed this Fray: see below for the rather mind-boggling post from Esther Nash (views that we don't think will find much support); Zorro's good word for Sports Illustrated, and his very un-Vogue point that "While female athletes rarely take on the dimensions of offensive linemen, some of them are as ugly as your average veteran hockey goon"; and Rachel's message, which should be read in full as it also featured some interesting statistics. Kathleen says "If more students had been exposed to the artists of the Renaissance, fewer women would enshrine the stick-figure woman as the corporeal ideal. Bring back art education! Bring back the voluptuous, fleshy nudes! Yay Rubens!"
Reader Comments From The Fray:
So why do women do this to each other? I happen to know it's not the men making all the women whittle themselves down. Not a single guy I know pressures his girlfriend/wife to be thin nor have any of my friends through the years dated only skinny women. Most men are nowhere near as uncompromising on this thinness thing as the fashion world would suggest. Where's all the pressure coming from? Not from the guys, I can tell you that. So once again, why are women doing this to each other?
--Otto
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Yes, I too long for the days when Vogue was an honest elitist magazine. But the "elite" of the thin is a democratic elite, to which we all can belong, with a little self-restraint. And as for being tall.... Remember the story of how Elizabeth Taylor got the job in National Velvet? They wanted a girl with an English accent, (which she had),but a few inches taller than she was. So--she stretched every day. It may take a bit more stretching time for an adult, but a little stretch each day could really do it, (unless you have osteoporosis or other precluding condition....but an intelligent, determined patient and doctor could probably find a way to get taller, even here. My main point is that the Elitism of the Beautiful is actually very democratic--because we all can belong to it, if we only try to look our very best selves! Being beautiful is just one more road to success!
--Esther Nash
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
I actually purchased that issue of Vogue, and was disappointed by their ridiculous definitions of body-types, but certainly not surprised. It is very laughable, as this article points out so excellently, but what isn't laughable is the long-ranging effects of perpetuating the myth that "You too can look like the girl in the magazine," onto young girls.
The bottom line is that the diet industry is about making money, but they are making it largely at the expense of young women's health and self-esteem. Most 4th graders don't know about air-brushing, or that only a small percentage of women possess the genetics to be as naturally slim as fashion models, and are holding themselves accountable to an unrealistic and unreal ideal. The women in the magazines don't look that good without the stylists, hair and makeup people, and the photographers who manipulate the image that is seen.
--Rachel
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
The Vogue issue on "shape" proves what I've known all along. Women are worse on this stuff than men. Aside from the one issue per year where they seek out beautiful women, Sports Illustrated regularly shows Lady Golfers of realistic proportions. Despite occasionally falling for the "Kournikova Syndrome" the magazine makes a point of favoring winners in the pictures they show of women. While female athletes rarely take on the dimensions of offensive linemen, some of them are as ugly as your average veteran hockey goon.
Vogue on the other hand strains to find a size 8 that it can stomach and a veritable midget at the height of 5'5" who is a full 7" shorter than their 6' amazon. Ooooohhhh! What diversity! If there aren't any women who are a size 12 and look good in fashionable clothes, hair and makeup, then who is buying the clothes, or for that matter the magazine?
--Zorro
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(4/3)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Least Fun Thing About Video Games: Friendly Fire
Why Is It Such a Big Deal That We Found Water on the Moon?
My Czech Vacation Made Me Kinda Sad
Help! I Got My Co-Worker's Sister Pregnant!
The Obama Administration Is Giving This Gitmo Detainee a Raw Deal
Another Book From Philip Roth About How Much It Stinks To Get Old
Notes From the Fray Editor:
We greatly enjoyed this Fray: see below for the rather mind-boggling post from Esther Nash (views that we don't think will find much support); Zorro's good word for Sports Illustrated, and his very un-Vogue point that "While female athletes rarely take on the dimensions of offensive linemen, some of them are as ugly as your average veteran hockey goon"; and Rachel's message, which should be read in full as it also featured some interesting statistics. Kathleen says "If more students had been exposed to the artists of the Renaissance, fewer women would enshrine the stick-figure woman as the corporeal ideal. Bring back art education! Bring back the voluptuous, fleshy nudes! Yay Rubens!"
Reader Comments From The Fray:
So why do women do this to each other? I happen to know it's not the men making all the women whittle themselves down. Not a single guy I know pressures his girlfriend/wife to be thin nor have any of my friends through the years dated only skinny women. Most men are nowhere near as uncompromising on this thinness thing as the fashion world would suggest. Where's all the pressure coming from? Not from the guys, I can tell you that. So once again, why are women doing this to each other?
--Otto
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Yes, I too long for the days when Vogue was an honest elitist magazine. But the "elite" of the thin is a democratic elite, to which we all can belong, with a little self-restraint. And as for being tall.... Remember the story of how Elizabeth Taylor got the job in National Velvet? They wanted a girl with an English accent, (which she had),but a few inches taller than she was. So--she stretched every day. It may take a bit more stretching time for an adult, but a little stretch each day could really do it, (unless you have osteoporosis or other precluding condition....but an intelligent, determined patient and doctor could probably find a way to get taller, even here. My main point is that the Elitism of the Beautiful is actually very democratic--because we all can belong to it, if we only try to look our very best selves! Being beautiful is just one more road to success!
--Esther Nash
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
I actually purchased that issue of Vogue, and was disappointed by their ridiculous definitions of body-types, but certainly not surprised. It is very laughable, as this article points out so excellently, but what isn't laughable is the long-ranging effects of perpetuating the myth that "You too can look like the girl in the magazine," onto young girls.
The bottom line is that the diet industry is about making money, but they are making it largely at the expense of young women's health and self-esteem. Most 4th graders don't know about air-brushing, or that only a small percentage of women possess the genetics to be as naturally slim as fashion models, and are holding themselves accountable to an unrealistic and unreal ideal. The women in the magazines don't look that good without the stylists, hair and makeup people, and the photographers who manipulate the image that is seen.
--Rachel
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
The Vogue issue on "shape" proves what I've known all along. Women are worse on this stuff than men. Aside from the one issue per year where they seek out beautiful women, Sports Illustrated regularly shows Lady Golfers of realistic proportions. Despite occasionally falling for the "Kournikova Syndrome" the magazine makes a point of favoring winners in the pictures they show of women. While female athletes rarely take on the dimensions of offensive linemen, some of them are as ugly as your average veteran hockey goon.
Vogue on the other hand strains to find a size 8 that it can stomach and a veritable midget at the height of 5'5" who is a full 7" shorter than their 6' amazon. Ooooohhhh! What diversity! If there aren't any women who are a size 12 and look good in fashionable clothes, hair and makeup, then who is buying the clothes, or for that matter the magazine?
--Zorro
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(4/3)