Token gesture?
The Shop ‘Til You Drop June issue for 2010 was a size and shape issue. In the magazine, some of the clothing reached to a size 24. Some. The vast majority went to a size 16 and down to a 4.
A token gesture from a mag that’s been around for a while now and hasn’t really featured much clothing beyond a size 14 before this issue?
Yeah, maybe.
However, at least unlike Vogue’s annual Shape Issue, it featured models and regular women who were on the larger side of the body shape and size spectrum, not just vaguely pear shaped women, tall women and short women (although there were plenty of those in the pages as well).
But I take issue with ads for Body Shaping protein shakes, and hypnosis to … lose weight? (pg. 198). I also take issue with the interview with the size 22 woman who works in fashion magazines and the paraphrased Karl Lagerfeld quote: “Fashion is the best incentive for losing weight” (pp 125-136). How about … no, Kaiser. Just … no. Not that I’m expecting body positivity from Mr. White Gloves himself, but yeesh.
Overall, I do feel the issue was a positive step in the right direction. I know that a magazine that focuses on shopping and trends every month isn’t exactly going to be breaking new grounds in featuring plus sized models or women in its pages all the time, but plus sized women buy clothing and accessories, and buy into trends just as much as skinnier women do.
I do feel that a mention is better than completely ignoring the plus sized market, even if it was only in the one issue. I hope the issue sold well. If the figures show that it did, then maybe there might be another issue in the works in the future, featuring plus sized fashions. Because there really aren’t many (if any) fashion magazines out there that acknowledges our existence and I’d like that to change.
Really interesting read, I’m always torn between thinking that (a) magazines putting together special issues like this, shows that they know there’s a problem with the ideal they portray most months of the year and (b) that there shouldn’t have to be a ‘special issue’ at all, and it’s most likely done from a marketing perspective.
And Karl Lagerfeld… There just aren’t words.
Karl is just so utterly ridiculous that I can’t even take him seriously. I just respond with a “lol, Karl *eyeroll*” and leave it at that.
I definitely agree! I think it’s a pretty savvy marketing decision. Which annoys me to an extent, but I also understand magazines need to make money, from consumers buying them and from the advertisers that support them. So, I’m torn too.
In the editor’s letter at the start of the issue, she notes that this isn’t a plus size issue because that would be too exclusive for what they want to achieve.
My first thought “……..yeah, they could probably put up with it for a month.”
The intention was good but it was difficult given how little plus size fashion there is in Australia. I mean, I’ve never seen STYD put a cheap, black, long sleeve tshirt before but because that’s one of the few things that goes up to a size 24 and isn’t hideous they used it twice.
“I know that a magazine that focuses on shopping and trends every month isn’t exactly going to be breaking new grounds in featuring plus sized models or women in its pages all the time, but plus sized women buy clothing and accessories, and buy into trends just as much as skinnier women do.”
Unfortunately, I think we’re barking up the wrong tree if we expect feminism and a lack of sizeism to be upheld in a magazine called “Shop ’til you drop”. It’s interesting how magazines are under a lot of pressure by the media to show ‘real women’, and they do occasionally put in non-photoshopped images or people who are larger or have no make-up, but it definitely feels like pandering.
Firstly, regardless of the level of ‘realness’, the models they use are all very good-looking anyway. They also still have stylists and clothes that cost as much as a weekly wage and a good photographer.
Secondly, whenever a magazine makes a big deal out of saying ‘look, we’re featuring plus-sized models/models with no make-up/photos with no photoshopped techniques’ they point out that this is still unusual, a little bit controversial. We know about it because it’s not ordinary. It’s a novelty and maybe even a fad. Unless it gets to a place where diversity is ordinary and not something to be remarked upon, I don’t really think we can read too much into this other than the fact that magazines are addressing the demands of their consumers, not that they’re a site of empowerment.
Eventually though, I do think that diversity can happen. For instance, the first time a black model was pictured on the front of Vogue, it was a big deal, and now it isn’t. And so, we know that images of non-white people aren’t this weird new controversial thing, but quite ordinary, as it should be (that said, white models are probably overrepresented in the magazine industry). Perhaps the same will happen for plus-sized models?
Erin, I really really hope so! I look forward to the day (and I am so hopeful it will happen one day) when bodies are normalised, when there isn’t a “plus sized issue”, but there just happens to be plus sized ‘regular’ people and plus sized models within the pages, without fanfare.
Frances – SERIOUSLY. How much black & how repetitive were a great deal of the outfits? I mean, damn — your job is to source that shit, mags. I know Australia is crappy compared to international sites and stores for plus sized, but to repeat a great deal of the clothing because it really seemed like they couldn’t find anything else? Ugh.