Originally posted @feministcupcake :
So the feminist blogosphere is talking about the “plus-size” models on the cover of Italian Vogue. This year I am presenting a paper at NWSA that deal with issues I think this image is raising yet again – My paper was concered with an image in Glamour Magazine in 2009 – Perhaps you remember it:
The Glamour article entitled “Oh. Wow. These Bodies are Beautiful.”[1] looked to prove plus-size[2] models equal in Beauty to their super thin counterparts. The article questioned the beauty/fashion industry’s obsession with thinness and announces Glamour magazine’s pledge to start a “body confidence…revolution” (Field 241). As you can see above, the visual focus of the article was a two page photograph of seven plus-size models, naked, their eyes wooing the camera, their lips poised to part, the bodies draped and cuddled together, like lovers, lovers being watched. Like many models that have come before them, these plus-sized models are objectified, turned into the object of male-gaze.
In light of this objectification, I find myself wondering what exactly a ‘body confidence… revolution’ entails? True, it’s hard to deny the intrinsic joy in seeing somewhat bigger bodies, which could be considered Othered bodies, represented as both normal and sexual, and I enjoyed reading Glamour’s call for a ‘revolution,’ but on close inspection, these plus-sized models that Glamour was cheering about aren’t truly representative of the majority of bodies that have been Othered.
And beyond that I can’t help but note that this should not be the welcome these Othered bodies are looking for, an ushering into the realm of sexually subjugated objects? Is that what a ‘body confidence… revolution’ entails, a move from abjection to objectification?
Understanding women as objects isn’t something new or unfamiliar. Ringing in the second wave of Feminism, Simone de Beauvoir, explains the nature of women’s cultural standing. She says, “humanity is male and man defines woman not as herself but as relative to him; she is not regarded as an autonomous being” (116). In other words, masculinity is perceived as the norm or the superior state of humanity and femininity exists as “inessential” opposition to this norm, the object against which the subject defines himself (116). Beauvoir advocates the rise of woman from object to subject by assuming the role of the masculine. In other words women would no longer be confined to the ‘feminine’ roles, such as that of wife, mother, teacher or domestic. Arguably, women have attained this status; we can be everything from astronauts to porn stars, but our position as Other remains.
Like the postmodern feminists, I link this continued objectification to the controlling influence of that which gets representation and the limitations of how we understand our socially constructed genders. Currently, women can choose any lifestyle they desire but they are predominately represented as Beauty objects, and so we perceive ourselves as such. Theorists like Bordo and Bartky provide us with the feminist understanding of Foucault’s docile bodies, bodies that inflict self-disciplinary action in response to the internalization of cultural norms, or rather the nature of human beings to respond to cultural representations or metanarratives by trying to assimilate/homogenize to the standards set by them. The female Beauty standard is such a metanarrative. The ingestion of this narrative as the prescriptive norm and the self-inflicted oppression occurring under its weight are at the center of women’s continued objectification.
[1] The title of the Glamour article insinuates surprise, as if no one would have guessed that the bodies that often kept from representation could be equally beautiful to the bodies we repeatedly represent.
[2] It is worth noting that the title plus-size is inherently prejudicial. Plus implies more than the norm, referencing the continued representation of larger models as Othered bodies.
2 Comments
I am quite divided on this subject. On one hand, it’s great that different body types are being considered as “attractive” and normal – which they are. On the other hand though, these “plus” size (ie normal sized) women are posed in exactly the same way as their size zero counterparts who are displayed sexually for an erotic gaze. They’re airbrushed and poreless and tanned and facially still fit into the ‘ideal’ fairly well. So while they are promoting diversity body-shape wise, they’re still fitting into perfection in many other ways. They still don’t look like the average, normal woman when she looks at herself naked in the bathroom mirror.
So, no, just because they’re of a normal size does not make the objectification any better. However, it’s less likely I think to be damaging towards females who look at it. They may realise that there is nothing wrong with their shapes after all, and stop feeling so much like they need to become thinner.
As for this whole new “curvy” ideal, it is just another ideal which is just as unattainable and potentially damaging for many women as the thin ideal. Some women are naturally straight up and down, athletic looking. No matter how much they eat they’re never going to have “curves” in the right places. Additionally, when the media publishes another “I love my curves” article what they usually mean is big tits and arse and a slim waist etc anyway. This ideal is just as bad, in my opinion.
Not to mention the fact that while some women of color were represented in the Glamour article these images continue to represent idealized beauty as white beauty – don’t you think? Ugh! How does this not make people crazy?