Whether it's sincere or not, it does my heart good to see a bigger woman out there strutting her stuff. I hate that the American ideal is super, super skinny - in a world full of starving people.

I've always thought that "size 0" was odd - odder still, "size 00." What's double nothing? At least they don't go into negatives.

Speaking as a person who loves math and numbers, zero most assuredly is NOT nothing. There is an incredible amount of power inherent in zero. That being said, getting down to a size zero is not really in the cards for most people. The only reason it exists is because of the whole "vanity-sizing" thing(i.e. what was a size 10 or 12 in the 1950s is now a size 6).

Um, I'm pretty sure that it was NOT done in support of healthy models. I think this is supposed to be one of those ad absurdum articles - they're not allowed to have dangerously underweight women, so they'll take overweight ones to show how craaaaaaaaaazy it is to put a lower limit on a model's BMI.

Supporting healthy models would mean hiring women who are thin but healthy. I mean, in theory there could be size 20 models, and that would be cool. But in my lifetime, I think fashion will remain about thin people.

i was bothered by this. why, since you cant have size 0's, do women have to be extremely big? its one extreme to the other and i dont think it helps anything. why cant they just use normal sizes for chrissakes?!

I agree with DT.
I think there's a lot of sarcasm in that.
But I think she still looks gorgeous.

I also agree with Jessica, 0 is nothing.

I really don't think it's a positive statement either. I think it's great to have pretty clothes for women of all sizes, but, let's be honest people, THAT woman doesn't look good in THOSE clothes.
I'm 100% with elektrodot here, why not show healthy and fit women? Why go from pathologically thin to morbidly obese?
Call me cynical, but I think Gaultier might be displaying a bit of the freakshow mentality here (as he already has in the past)

A size 20 isn't necessarily morbidly obese, but it would make a whale of a lot more since if he went with a dress size of 11 to 14, which is the national average, rather than hopping back and forth between 0 and 20.

That said, I doubt this was intended as a conscious reductio ad absurdum. Fashion designers seem to be incredibly fuzzy thinkers ("I am thinking of a woman, she is proud, she is ah-zexy, she is dangerous...").

Cheers,

TH

I'm not familiar with the US sizing system, so don't really know what a size 20 represents, but just looking at the picture, she's obviously massively overweight, even if she's not morbidly obese from a clinical point of view (which I doubt, "morbidly obese" being defined as a BMI over 35).

Sorry, I've just checked "morbid obesity" is over 40, from 35 to 39.9 is considered "severe obesity".
My mistake. :o)

there are many size 20 women that can and do look super hot, and surely, if anyone can help size 20 women look hot, it should be a talented designer. but instead of going that route, Gaultier has instead chosen the freakshow route, as in, seeming to say, look what a freakshow size 20 women are. he has contributed to the caricature of fat women with this design.

meanwhile, anorexia remains the most lethal of all mental disorders, and yet remains the body ideal for these designers, and women generally.

It sounds to me like you are completely over-analyzing the size 0 thing. There are plenty of tiny women who are size zero due to size inflation. It's not their fault and I find your comment somewhat insulting. Who cares about the damn numbers? Feminists shouldn't.

As others have pointed out, what we now call a 0 was probably once about a size 4. As someone who is NOT underweight but wears a size 4 (current day size 4 ... was probably once called size 8), I don't appreciate the implication that anybody who wears a small size is obviously underweight, exploited, unhealthy, and non-feminist. What would YOU call the size smaller than 2?

I don't think that's the implication at all, Liz. My understanding is that producing a size 0, which, while a very important number mathematically, does indeed translate nothing, implies that a) having a thin body is the equivalent to weighing nothing and b) that being/weighing "nothing" is a good goal for most women.

I think the whole way that women's clothing is sized is absurd. Those numbers are meaningless. They don't correspond to any actual measurements. It is impossible to know if a size 4 in one store is equivalent to a size 4 in another; hell, I have the same shirt in two different colors from Anthropologie, and one is a 4 and the other is a 6! I bought them on the same day! I want our clothing to be sized like men's, with inches counted and measured out, and then we can stop all this size 0 nonsense once and for all.

Showing size 0 and then size 20 creates a false dichotomy between those sizes. Nothing in between. It's a totally false and potentially quite harmful view of the world.

Gaultier has instead chosen the freakshow route, as in, seeming to say, look what a freakshow size 20 women are. he has contributed to the caricature of fat women with this design.

Pretty much all of Gaultier's models look like they just stepped out of a freakshow ... it's his trademark. I don't know his motives behind this, but he's certainly not one to choose anything "average" for his shows. I guess we'll just need to wait for an interview with him (if he deigns to give one) on this topic... you can't tell much at face value.

And I like the corset.

I wouldn't give Gaultier credit for much, but beauty is in your attitude, which she displays in spades. I think she's gorgeous.

2 things:
1) most designers fit to a 6 (which can have different measurements wherever you go) and increase or decrease by even number based on fixed increments. There aren't very many even (non negative)numbers smaller than 6, and 0 happens to be one of them. It's not a statement, it just is. one could make size 6 the smallest size then scale up from there, but that creates distortion in one direction only and ultimately would make clothing fit even weirder.

2) I think the model looks great. If he wanted to make her look bad, he could have squeezed her into something ill fitting, but he didn't. He's still mocking the issue, but designers have gotten hell for putting size 6 models on the runway, Gaultier makes a stronger statement by putting a larger woman on the runway and giving her a hot well tailored outfit, that showcases his skill as a designer.

I think this was intended as a snarky comeback; it's classic hyperbole.

It irritates me, because no one's asking the designers to use obese models, just NOT dangerously underweight ones. The idea being that if the models were actually representative of the average woman on the street, the average woman wouldn't be starving herself into the hospital trying to emulate them. To most of us, this is a reasonable notion. But I suspect to these designers, the difference between a normal-sized woman and the underfed waifs they're used to is as dramatic as the difference to us between a size 10-12 and a 3X or something. In short, I think the size 20 model used here is intended to be representative of how "disgustingly fat" a normal-sized woman is compared to the oh-so-desireable perfect size 0--at least in the minds of the designers.

It's also an incredibly childish response, essentially amounting to a threat to take their toys and go home if we don't let them play their way. Can't use skinny models? Let's see how you like THIS!

Personally I think they need to take off the anorexic-o-vision goggles and grow the **** up.

Note: My use of the term "normal-sized" refers to the general average body weight for adult women. It is in no way intended as a disparagement, or to suggest that anyone who is larger or smaller than the average is in any way "abnormal".

I just HAD to comment on this since I am a model. Even though I work in the business, I am very much against the size 0 model. I'm against it because this is simply not what normal women look like. In fact, do you have any idea what these models have to do to themselves in order to make themselves a size 0? They have to rarely if ever eat, they exercise non-stop, and they even take laxitives and drugs such as heroine and cocaine to keep them from feeling hungry. Have you ever seen a fashion show and noticed how sickly and gaunt the models look with the dark circles underneath their eyes, their eyes sunk in, flat chests, and their rip cages showing? It's because they are physically sick! Adult human women were not designed to be built like that, which is why these women have to go to such extreme and deadly lengths in order to acheive that size. I'm all for going back to the ideal model size that existed 20 or more years ago. Remember Christie Brinkley, Cindy Crawford, and Marilyn Monroe? Those weren't size 0 models. They were normal sized, HEALTHY models who had breasts and hips. That is what REAL women look like! Hell, Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 and everyone thought she looked great! If I ever get famous enough in the industry, I'm going to find a way to bring back the model sizes of yesterday and put an end to this Concentration-Camp size 0 look.

I agree with other commenters who have said that Gaultier has a history of using overdramatic, "freakshow"-esque choices in his shows, especially with models. I don't think he's disparaging this woman (Velvet D'Amour, for those of you who wanted to know, and by the way, she is more of a size 30 than a 20 if you convert her weight in kilos to pounds, which is a much more dramatic statement) at all; she does have tons of model attitude and sex appeal, and I think Gaultier can see that. At least, I hope so. Another interesting fact about this show that I haven't seen mentioned is that Velvet was the only model wearing a corset or anything like that; the rest of the collection was sportswear. What does everyone make of that? There's a good discussion happening at Big Fat Blog as well as here.

You know, as a size 18 woman, I can't help but read the comments here and feel offended. You put a size 20 woman out in public in well-tailored lingerie and people (other women) start referring to "normal sizes", and "freak shows". Great, thanks for making me feel like a valid portion of the female population (I'd like to speak for all overweight women, but I'll refrain).

Why is it that there has to be one size that is "normal" for women, be it 00, 10, or 22? Why can't the fashion industry employ women of ALL sizes, since apparently women exist in all these sizes, otherwise stores wouldn't need to carry numbers 00 to 24.

I don't want to fall into the trap of saying that fat women are "real" women, because I think that's just as offensive as putting the size 0 women up on a pedastal. I just... okay, I left a bridal shop in tears after realizing that they *only* carried sample dresses in the "normal" and "average" size of 12. Later on, after I'd calmed down, I realized that it must also be hard for women who wear, say, a 4 or 6 to go into such shops, because then they need to have the dress pinned to them in order to see how it might look.

I think it's great to have a chic designer actually decide to design a hot piece of lingerie for a size 20 woman and have it fit her well, and the knee-jerk reaction seems to be, "ho god, why can't they use normal people!?" Maybe it's time to stop forcing definitions of "normal" on other people, be it normal sexuality, normal weight, normal income, etc.

As a flucuating size 16-20, I resent the comments on how people think this model is unhealthy looking. I am actually quite healthy, thank you very much. I realize this discussion is trying to analyze the motive of the designer, but I'm seeing some sizism underlying some of these comments.
I don't think she looks bad at all. She has great hips! I agree with tomhead:
"I doubt this was intended as a conscious reductio ad absurdum. Fashion designers seem to be incredibly fuzzy thinkers ('I am thinking of a woman, she is proud, she is ah-zexy, she is dangerous...')."

Also, with the plus-size industry seeing a boom in market and profitability and demand for more fashionable clothing, I'd say it behooves designers to *finally* respond and reach out to this population.

She certainly has a lot of attitude and a beautiful face, but I think she would have looked a lot better in a different outfit. Suspenders are not particularly flattering if you're not very tall and slender. Again, I think he dressed her like that for maximum dramatic effect and "shock value".

agapelust, I understand where you're coming from and I certainly wouldn't use the term "normal" or "abnormal", but, even though it's great to celebrate the female form in all shapes and sizes (which, again, I really don't think has been done in this case), obesity IS a health hazard.
As for the freakshow reference, I don't think anyone here implied that the model was a freak, rather that Gaultier decided to hire the usual skinny models and to throw in a plus-size model in highly revealing clothes for dramatic effect. I think actually using models of many different shapes and sizes (slender, average and big) in his fashion show would have been a lot better...

I don't know anything about the designer or the model, but I'm wondering why everyone is assuming that he put her in the show to make a statement about how unattractive fat people are. She's obviously super beautiful and confidently sexy--if he had wanted to "prove" how "superior" the thin ideal is, he probably would have used someone who truly looked like Hell.

It kind of burns my ass that so many of you are saying that this woman is morbidly obese or that she looks like a freakshow--I think she's completely hot and I would be thrilled if I saw more images of women that looked like this in mainstream fashion magazines and in movies and stuff.

I think the main thing people should hope for, is that the models being used (who we non-fashion people will emulate) be healthy. Its awful putting forward emaciated women as an ideal body type. However, I think going to the opposite extreme and saying 'big and proud' is just as dangerous (and maybe more so). From a health standpoint, its not ok to be fat. The model being used is obese. She is ruining her health, destroying her body and will eventually cost society a great deal when she gets sick. From a casual search of medical journals, I found many dire reports on the effects of obesity. The most shocking report indicated obesity could rob a person of up to 22% of their lifespan (JAMA. 2003 Jan 8;289(2):187-93). More serious is that the effects of obesity are more severe for younger people: a population who's obesity rate is rising and who are most impressionable w/r to fashion & image. I guess my point is that the image I'd like to see in fashion is one of health. I would be happy if the images of beauty being assimilated by society were ones that encouraged well-being and BALANCE. This would be great!

When I first saw this, I thought, "Whatever. Gaultier uses atypical models all the time." The man just loves to make a statement.

It's interesting, though, that the rest of the collection was sportswear. I still don't think that he did it to make fun of the woman. If he was trying to make fun of anyone, it was probably us for the reactions we would have to it.

Size 0 is stupid, but it's just a random number. It doesn't mean women don't exist, and it doesn't reduce them to nothing. There is nothing that anyone can do to reduce women to nothing if women refuse to be reduced.

EG, I agree. They already measure jeans that way at lots of places.

as detailed in many places including The Diet Myth, by Paul Campos, "obesity" is a made-up condition and is absolutely not a health risk. and in fact, the data actually show that being too thin IS a huge health risk, as outlined by Campos. In this regard, I am compelled to point out what no one has mentioned yet, that the new model-size rules came about because one overly thin model died before fashion week, after eating too little for weeks, in order to lose weight.

as I note above, anorexia is THE single MOST LETHAL MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM. yet here we get the same old (incorrect) tripe about the "obesity" crisis. please.

if obesity shortens life, why are we in the middle of an "obesity epidemic", and yet life spans go up each and every year?

the truth is, the diet industry is an extraordinarily powerful voice that has a vested interest in hiding the real information that carrying extra weight actually has protective effects: people who carry extra weight have lower mortality from diseases such as heart diseases and hypertension, than their lower-weight counterparts. this are just two examples of how carrying what's called excess weight can actually be considered quite healthy. meanwhile, being lower weight puts you at higher risk of certain diseases, like breast cancer and osteoporosis (which actually, some doctors are now theorizing, appears to be caused by chronic dieting).

the weight issue is simply a distraction, it's a purely cosmetic issue wrapped up (falsely) in medical claims, and really placed on women's (not men's) shoulders.

if we really care about health, we should focus not on weight but on lifestyle. quitting smoking dramatically improves health. exercise dramatically increases health. better food choices increase health, but its a distant 3rd to the first 2.

and, to clarify, and apologize for not being clearer initially, my "freakshow" comment was about the design, not the model. I think this model is working it, and I personally find her size and shape just fine. but I don't think this design is well-suited to flatter her body shape.

She's not even that fat! Geez.

i wander between size 0 - 2 and to be quite honest, i hate having to look for pants and when they don't have the zeros, ones, or twos available i have to ask the employees for these sizes.

granted i am 5 feet tall as opposed to the taller average female height but it is as just little fun to have your size not available or be considered a "zero".

i don't like the ZERO factor any more than anyone else and i believe that models should most definitely be shown as healthy human beings. i can not understand why selling "healthy" could possibly be a negative body image. it would encourage both sides of the scales to work towards a positive body type rather than one that leads to starving or gorging. both sides would not feel like the other was some irrational impossible goal.

of course there is always exceptions to the rules and it is not to say that the world would be perfect if a healthy body image was the "ideal", but i believe that it would improve the very skewed view that the fashion world has created for women.

they need to change the size scale to reflect that of men's. i would like to feel like i exist when i go shopping for clothes instead of a lost soul stuck in purgatory between children sizes and adult sizes.

I'm a full grown woman who is a size 2, sometimes a 0 depending on the clothing brand. I eat a balanced diet and get enough exercise, I just happen to have a very fast metabolism. Am I not "normal" simply because I have a smaller-than-average frame? I don't take drugs or starve myself but I've still had people call me anorexic...not so much anymore, but it happened a lot when I was a teenager and had no hips yet.

Anyway I've never understood why the designers can't use a range of sizes. I know they fit the clothes to a 6 beforehand but would it really be a big deal to throw a few 4s, 8s, 12s in there as well? Or to choose your model based on what body type looks good in a particular outfit?

"as detailed in many places including The Diet Myth, by Paul Campos, "obesity" is a made-up condition and is absolutely not a health risk. "

Go tell that to my aunt whose BMI is well over 40 and who now suffers from hypertension and heart failure. I guess her cardiologist is either delusional or influenced by the fashion industry when he tells her her obesity is to blame. I guess it's also a coincidence that my mom, whose BMI is about half her sister's, doesn't have the slightest trace of heart or blood pressure problem, despite being 2 years older and having a less than ideal lifestyle.

Since when it is okay to call any body gross or disgusting? Seriously, that seems like the most anti-feminist and oppressive thing out there.
Fashion is like ballet: you're not supposed to look at the body, you're supposed to notice the clothes or the dance. That can piss you off, that can make you feel like there is some conspiracy going on to make you diet your way down to a size 2. But I hate to break it to you all, fashion isn't for you.
As someone who was a size 20, and practically lost my feminist badge of honor dieting down to a healthy size 8, I am sick and tired of seeing some bodies glorified and others called disgusting.
It doesn't matter what side of the spectrum that body falls on, that's just objectification in another light.

"if obesity shortens life, why are we in the middle of an "obesity epidemic", and yet life spans go up each and every year? "

Because the obesity epidemic mainly touches younger people, so it hasn't had the time to influence life expectancy yet and probably won't before one or 2 decades...

Phannie-Pack - - I have the same damn problem.
I wanted to say that I find it so strange how people, well women actually, fetishize on my pants size and my weight. I wear a Size 0 because I am short/small framed, not because I am unhealthy skinny. So often, when someone learns what size I wear they say something like "I wish".
The same thing happens with my weight. But that's an even stranger thing because I often get the dual response of "I wish" and "You're so skinney. Gain some weight." What they don't realize that if they forced that ideal body image on short little me, then I would have to drop down to about 85lbs!!! Also, as mentioned, it would be unhealthy for me to go out of my way to gain weight. Personally, I'm fine with my body.
Women need to stop fetishising these numbers. The fashion industry needs to be realistic.
Also, on the subject of skinney models, have you ever noticed in fashion ads, how these "ideal" 6 foot Size 0 gals are altered so that there skin looks smooth where really there should be ribs and hip bones? That always pisses me off! i mean if the industry wants skinny then it should be prepared to deal with what a skinny woman really looks like, bones and all! Just like it pisses me off when curvy gals have the curves photoshopped off of them.

For a taste of what clothes sizes were like before vanity sizing, visit your local fabric store and look at the patterns. Patternmakers adhere to traditional sizing because seamstresses expect a certain size to be what it is, no matter what year it is.

Example: If the measurement around the fullest part of your bust is 34 inches (and that's where you usually measure), you're a size 12. This would be about a size 6 in vanity sizing.

I guess this is way off-topic, but I thought it's interesting that there are still industries that haven't caved in to the vanity sizing scam. There are even a few lines of patterns, such as Sandra Betzina's "Today's Fit", that don't even use numbers. They use letters. I know it's basically a shell game ("Oh, I wish I were an A instead of a D"), but it's an interesting way of getting around the problem.

I don't think the number 0 is symbolic of anything. It's likely to stop the vanity sizing because negative measures are absurd, and you can only tack on so many zeros. But I don't think anyone decided, consciously or unconsciously, to label the ideal size 0 for symbolic reasons.

I'm with phanie-pack, Lauren, and tankerton.

EG: Why does "producing a size 0" imply "that being/weighing "nothing" is a good goal for most women"? I can see that constantly showing women images of size 0's and no others implies that, but i don't think producing a product some of us (5-foot-1 and anything above size 2 falls off me) legitimately need does. Some women are 0's, so they make 0's - just as some women are 6's or 10's or 20's, so they make those, too.

Also, it's hard for me to see that women are being forced into this mold just by looking around me. The last few times I've gone shopping (which I do rarely, since it's so hard to find my sizes), I've been faced with this choice: buy clothes that fit but all say "juicy" in glitter across the ass, buy the "petite" sizes in the junior departent (doubly insulting - at 26 I'm told I'm a junior member of my club, AND "petite" typically translates as short but not thin, which means everything bags), or mistakenly wander into the women's department, where everything's 10 sizes too big. Now, there is a market for every style & size I've just described. There just doesn't seem to be one for me.

yeah, the "00" is wack.

It's pretty disturbing that some people don't take the 'obesity crisis' seriously. A 1999 study showed that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, gallbladder disease, coronary heart disease (not in males), high blood pressure, or osteoarthritis all increased with levels of obesity (1). For breast cancer: a more recent study showed increased risk of breast cancer with obesity (2).

The future cost of this epidemic is pretty staggering. One study had it at 16 billion dollars over 25 years;
and it only looked at middle aged females (3)!

As for why the crisis has not yielded a decrease in life expectancy for the total population: Obesity has been steadily increasing since 1960; with the largest increase in the 80's (4). Therefore the epidemic is a recent one. It's effects on overall life expectancy may not have manifested themselves yet (5). Also, overall life expectancy bagan to plateau around the mid-90s.

So really, I don't think it makes sense to glorify being overweight and place it in a positive light. If this model is indeed 30kg overweight, that's a serious problem. And if society accepts this as normal we will pay a high price. The money wasted treating these ailments could be put to many better uses.

We should be encouraging healthy lifestyles, not trying to excuse unhealthy ones.

1. "The disease burden associated with overweight and obesity."
JAMA. 1999 Oct 27;282(16):1523-9.
2 "Obesity and breast cancer screening."
J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Apr;19(4):390-1.
3. "The 25-year health care costs of women who remain overweight after 40 years of age."
Am J Prev Med. 1996 Sep-Oct;12(5):388-94.
4. "Overweight and obesity in the United States: prevalence and trends, 1960-1994."
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Jan;22(1):39-47. Links
5. (Department of Health and Human Resources: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf#027).

I feel it is necessary to indicate that this model is far larger than a size 20. I would guess she is a size 38-40. A woman who was a size 20 would be about half her size.

Personally, I would prefer a sizing system similar to what men have for pants... a number that corresponds to a real mesurement, in inches. Being a tall (5-11) woman whose "size" has fluctuated, over the past ten years, between and eight and a 16, it has increasingly become an ordeal just figuring out what to take into the dressing room with me. My fiancee can order jeans online based on his waist-length measurements and never have to wonder if they'll *really* be what he thinks they are. 36 inches is always 36 inches.

Why are designers afraid to size women's clothing in "real" numbers? Do they think we can't handle it? If, for example, we had a measurement system that used a hips-length, or waist-length ratio, I think women would have a lot more power over their fashion choices. Manufacturers would be forced to provide a greater number of options. As it stands, if we're lucky, we get petite, regular, and tall... but rarely all three options for a given width size, and both the witdth and length size are based on virtually nothing.

The whole thing makes me want to swear off commercial clothing and fire up my sewing machine. :D

Oh, sizes have an annoying tendency to make no sense. I have a similar problem with shoe sizes: the size that fits me fluctuates between 11 and 13, depending on the manufacturer. I think in Japan shoe sizes are in centimeters, but I know in the US and Europe they're arbitrary numbers.

About obesity, a while ago Ampersand had a few graphs trying to show that obesity wasn't a health risk. What he ended up proving was that the BMI correlated with the highest level of health was about 25, give or take, and the entire 21-28 range seemed to be safe.

The truth is that some women are very unhealthy at size 20 and some women are very healthy at size 20, and people who think they are entitled to tell women how much they should or shouldn't weigh--whether they're using the fashion industry as the basis of their argument, or some weird medical basis--should mind their own damn business.

I don't think the model in the above picture is unattractive, but the fact that Gauthier went with a size 20 or higher instead of the national average of size 11-14 when he usually uses size 0's seems strange to me. He was obviously making a point of the model's weight. What point he was making is anybody's guess; fashion designers being the fuzzy thinkers that they tend to be, I doubt even Gauthier knows.

Cheers,

TH

There's an annoying element of telling people how much they should weigh (not just women - though women more than men, for sure). But a lot of the concern about obesity doesn't blame individuals, but corporations that make addictive but crappy food, an educational system that fails to explain to people that eating too much and not exercising enough is bad for them, and a culture that glorifies unhealthy food.

And I'm not kidding about fuzzy thinking--anyone ever see an interview with Gauthier, Yves St. Laurent, Alexander McQueen, etc.? I don't think these guys are wired the same way the rest of us are.

Cheers,

TH

I think that a big part of the problem with size 0 isn't that the size itself is "too small" -- it's that the women wearing these sizes are around 5'11", not 5'1" or similar as some of the size 0 commenters are. And as for petite sizes, they are actually smaller in addition to being shorter; if you are shorter, you're proportionately smaller at any given size; that's just how bodies work. Otherwise short people would look like they were stretched out onto a widescreen TV.

I agree that obesity and anorexia are both ginormous problems. To put it differently, we're slowly losing the weight middle class. The skinny are getting skinnier, and the fat are getting fatter. There are less and less people around a healthy mid-range level. Obviously what is healthy for individual people will vary, just as some people can drink scotch and smoke cigars every day of their lives and live to be 100, and other people never touch liquor and never come within 50 feet of smoke, and die from cancer in their 50s. The fact that there are outliers who can be healthy is not the point. The point is that we ought not to be glorifying, through our fashion, lifestyles that are unhealthy and expectations that are unrealistic for most people.

Most people can skip meals every now and again and be fine. Similarly, most people can gorge themselves on rich foods every once in a while, and be fine. But building a lifestyle on either of these extremes is not healthy.

Thus, it's not smart or responsible to have runway models that are weights/sizes that are unhealthy for most women. Even if there are women who could be healthy at those sizes, the fact that these designers have such a broad audience ought to make them think twice.

I'm 5'7" and if I were to drop to a size 0 I would be frighteningly unhealthy. While I was in law school I weighed around 125 pounds, which is a healthy weight and put me on the slim side. Ten pounds lighter would have put my BMI at less than 18, which is considered unhealthy for most women. I wore a size six and could *occasionally* squeeze into a four. But my hips were not going to let me fit into anything much smaller. Right now I'm a healthy size eight, although I wouldn't mind dropping back to a six. I'm still trim though not as slender as I was a couple years ago. I'm comfortable enough with my body to wear a bikini, and when I do the only stares I get are from guys who'd like to buy me a drink.

So what's so unsuitable about someone with my size body that she shouldn't be a fashion model? It just seems to me that it's healthier to encourage women and young girls to have bodies that tend to correlate with a healthy weight. I'm all for diversity of model sizes -- I'd like to see women both larger AND smaller than me on the runway, as well as women who are around my size. Gaultier has made it clear the fashion industry disagrees.

Anyone watch Ugly Betty tonight? The plot for this episode had great timing. The size zero comment came to mind when an actress in the episode is disappointed that the magazine Betty works for is going to retouch her photos to make her skinnier. The actress isn't happy about it but goes along. They show her sitting in front of a computer looking depressed. She plays with the retouching software and makes her photo skinnier and skinnier until it disappears.

TLF, although officially you should keep your BMI above 18-18.5, in practice the lower limit seems to be higher. Back when Ampersand posted the charts I mentioned in my last comment, he or one of the commenters noted that obesity looks a lot worse when you compare it to a baseline BMI of 23-25 than when you compare it to 19-25 - in other words, even 19 or 20 isn't too good for you.

I'm not sure you're right about losing the weight middle class - I know obesity is on the rise in the US and in Europe, but I don't know about anorexia - but I do know it's especially true for women. From what it seems, an American man of average male height and average male weight seems to have the same BMI as an American woman of average female height and average female weight, but women are far likelier to have BMIs outside normal ranges - in other words, there are more obese women than men and more underweight women than men in the US (I think it's also true elsewhere but I'm not sure).

I wear a size zero; it's just how I'm built. Does that mean I "don't exist," Samhita? Criticizing thin people for being thin (especially those who are naturally thin) doesn't fix the problem of fat people being ostracized.

This is not doing the unthinkable. Gaultier has used plus sized models in the past and not gotten as much attention for it because it was not in the light of Madrid's recomendations.

Sizeism -- because of any size -- is not ok. These comments are filled with fatphobia and looksism. Assuming that people are unhealthy because they are a size 0 or because they are a size 20 is prejudiced. For some great info on Health at Every Size, check out the body positive project at www.bodypositive.com.

Also, to reflect on WallyB's post, often it is found that fat people are not sick because they're fat, but because they feel uncomfortable seeking help from fatphobic doctors and subsequently do not seek healthcare. The fault isn't of the fat people, but its a sign of an entire system designed to support bariatric surgery, a weight loss industry that doesn't work, and body normative imagery. For more info on that, someone might be interested in reading Paul Campo's "The Obesity Myth" or "The Diet Myth."

It's not that I hate the size zeros. If you're there honestly, bless you. I know we're fighting the same battle, but from different ends.

And it's not that I hate the people who tell me I'm disgusting and treat me with contempt because of my size. There's no way you can know my blood work's stellar and my blood pressure's probably better than yours. You can't see the three miles I run every morning. You can only see my ginormous ass and judge accordingly.

It's that I hate how, no matter how I try, I hate myself.

the reason designers use very thin models is because of the way clothing "drapes" better on these frames. the majority of high fashion showcases loose-fitting, layered, drapey clothing, that is what is in style. if 'average' or 'healthy' models were used to display such fashion, this sort of clothing would cause them to look heavier, which is, by society's standards, not desirable. therefore, women will not want to buy their clothes. and if women do not want to buy their clothes the designer does not profit. the same logic can be applied to other fashion besides high fashion, like lingerie and swimwear: notice these models look healthier and have more curves (tyra banks, heidi klum, adriana lima- and notice i said "more" curves and health"ier"). if nicole richie-esque bodies were marketing swimsuits and lingerie, they wouldnt sell because frankly, that little of fabric on that many bones looks disgusting.
now, -ideally- HEALTHY models of many sizes would be used as models. it is possible to be healthy as a size 0 (not skin and bones), it is possible to be a healthy size 20 (curvy and fit) and it is possible to be a healthy size inbetween. the only thing that should -IDEALLY- be discouraged is the unhealthy behavior that often contributes to being excessively underweight or excessively overweight (people should not starve themselves into a skeleton and people should not be eating mcdonalds all day everyday). anorexia and obesity are both serious health problems in our country and neither should be glorified. i am not saying people aren't born with certain body types; rather i am saying that we should not ignore the control that we DO have to maintain a healthy body weight for our size- by eating right and exercising- and this is what should be glorified.
personally, i would love to see the marilyn monroe/bettie page body type come back to represent an "ideal" if there is going to be one. anorexia is not something that should be projected onto anyone in a positive light, especially adolescents who are most strongly influenced by the media. however, i don't see the anorexic model evolving at all until fashion designers no longer cater designs to thin frames (drapey layered clothing) or weight requirements are imposed like in Spain or something else that i cannot tell you.
and further, has anyone noticed the male models on catwalks? theyve been reduced too; the old ideal of muscular and masculine has now been replaced with the emaciated, more androgynous male model. just wanted to point out that although anorexia does mostly affect women, the anorexic look has extended to men as well.

i like the look on her face. :)

I have just returned from booking my impending wedding at a Shinto shrine here in Japan, and had to have a special moment of conversation with the priest because one of my Australian friends coming to the ceremony is so fat that he may break the tiny flimsy chairs provided for the event. Coming to Japan really makes you realise just how messed up the west is about weight- we have way too much of it going around, and way too few honest views on it. The Japanese have no such delusions - they all want to be skinny, and they all want to stay skinny. They find the size of Westerners and the amount we eat quite amazing.

Which is probably why they have the longest life expectancy in the world. Life expectancies in the west haven't just plateaued, they may start falling in the future. Current predictions of life expectancy don't take account of the relationship between obesity and life expectancy. Obesity is known to be linked to heart disease and diabetes, and has a heavy burden of disease which is going to be a major economic problem for all countries facing this epidemic, but particularly for the US, where health costs are typically higher than other wealthy countries, and where health care is often paid for by employers. Very few studies contradict this view, and one high profile one recently published has attracted criticism (this is one that Campos sites). Most complaints about the fashion industry can be made on purely moral grounds without any attempt to pretend that obesity is okay or good, or that the West doesn't have a big problem with it. Conflating serious issues of the representation of women with a public health problem that is not related seems a little counter-productive to me.

Also, I don't think I have ever met anyone who works with or has studied anorexic people who seriously believes that their disease is anything but a mental health problem. These people didn't just read a few women's magazines and decide to kill themselves - many of them also have concurrent family issues, schizophrenia, drug problems and abuse histories which should probably be considered before blaming the fashion industry. And it's also disingenuous for leftists, liberals or feminists to blame fashion magazines for anorexia while also refusing to accept a link between violent video games and antisocial teenage behaviour; fantasy role-playing or heavy metal and satanism; sex education and teenage sex; provocative teen fiction and teenage sex; advocating armed resistance in Iraq and terrorism; rap music and violence and/or misogyny. If you reject the links between even some of these things, you need to reject the link between the fashion world and anorexia unless you can provide decent evidence of a verifiable relationship. And by verifiable I don't mean 'I read it in some anorexic girl's diary'.

Obesity and overweight are a serious social problem that is only going to get worse while people pretend it's all okay. Right now in Australia the army and various peak sporting bodies are worried that they won't be able to recruit enough sports people (or soldiers) at basic skill levels to support a decent quality of elite sports people (or soldiers), and this recruitment probably is entirely due to weight problems. Participation in sport is declining across the western world and we are becoming more car dependent. These are social phenomena which, while they may not be important to all people at all times, are important to most people, and have ramifications for all of us. Unless a real link can be provided between health and the fashion industry, that industry should be addressed on the basis of the only obvious issues which apply to it - its intellectual and moral vacuity, and obvious disrespect for women.

'm very sick of even leftists eating up anti-fat bigotry and still pretending that they aren't bigots.

If someone is overweight it does not automatically mean they are unhealthy, lazy, unattractive or an object of pity. People are entirely free to think she is unattractive, etc, however I notice the complete lack of basic human decencey exhibited by people when discussing the topic. And, admittedly, I'm a little more disgusted that I'm seeing this behavior from self-proclaimed feminists.

We talk about why women can't be appreciated for what they are, as they are, and then a picture of a non-stick figure model appears on the website and suddenly the "claws come out". We are no better than those we oppose, then.

Odd that the only person to identify herself as a model was among the few who didn't have something rude or insensitive to say.

I haven't seen anyone being rude on this thread. Once again, I don't think the model has been shown in the most flattering way. I happen to think this outfit doesn't become her, just like it probably wouldn't become 95% of the female population. All outfits don't look good on all body types, regardless of weight. If I'm rude or insensitive because I don't roll over and yell that she looks wonderful in those clothes, so be it. Please note that people here are complaining that she's being called "ugly" when she has only received praise for her looks. The designer and the clothes have been the only ones criticized here. I think she looks fine, just not in those clothes. You have your aesthetic judgement, I have mine (and no, I don't think it's necessary to be a size 0, 00, -10 or whatever it's called to be attractive).
Thin women are offended by anorexia references, plus-size women are offended by obesity references, let's get real, no matter what the hype is: it's unhealthy to eat either too much or too little. Some people are big no matter what, others are small no matter what.
And as far as our aesthetic judgements are concerned, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we are entitled to our own opinion and criteria without having to apologize to the rest of the world for it.

I was anorexic as a teenager (although I was never hospitalized, the thought of eating made me nautious, and my hip bones were visible). I got pregnant in my early twenties and began to eat because I wanted to be responsible toward my child. My husband has been very supportive of me and I haven't fallen back into that mindset, yes, it was a mindset. However, I am now fluctuating between a size 16 and 18. I have seen both sides of the arguement first hand. I am not going to comment on which is healthier, or whether either is healthy at all. I will say that when I was so incredibly thin, people's reaction was positive, and now, not so much. People don't voice their opinions now, as they did when I was thin, however, it is all over their faces. My point is, that people now support my self critical need to lose weight, but when I was thin I was encouraged to stay that way or even lose more. This is not a fashion industry problem, it is a society problem. The representations that the designers choose to show us are a reflection of our own unspeakable ideal of perfection. This goes deeper than size. How many more products have come out in recent years to keep us looking young? It is our push for perfection that is hurting us. If we can't reign in our need for perfection then we need to push to change the picture of perfection. I agree that healthy should be the ideal, but like others have said, people don't wear their medical history on their shirt sleeves.

I guess my main point is that we can't blame the fashion industry for reflecting our twisted values back to us. As individuals we will and do disagree with the premise, but as a society the acceptance is there. If designers weren't rewarded monetarily, they would change their practices.

"it's unhealthy to eat either too much or too little. Some people are big no matter what, others are small no matter what."

Having trimmed off the excuses for being insensitive, this bit I can agree with.
Oddly enough it seems like these very simple points get lost in the shuffle.

"And as far as our aesthetic judgements are concerned, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we are entitled to our own opinion and criteria without having to apologize to the rest of the world for it."

No one told anyone they need to "apologize" for anyhing. I simply noted a lack of even basic decency, and sensitivity. There are ways to express an opinion without insulting others. However, whenever weight issues come up for discussion common sense seems to fly out the window.

If no one was being rude, this would not have been posted:

"You know, as a size 18 woman, I can't help but read the comments here and feel offended. You put a size 20 woman out in public in well-tailored lingerie and people (other women) start referring to "normal sizes", and "freak shows". Great, thanks for making me feel like a valid portion of the female population (I'd like to speak for all overweight women, but I'll refrain)."

And let's not forget the pronouncements (complete with medical studies and anecdotal evidence about people's fat and sick relatives) of how unhealthy you are. We can never have a convo about weight issues without someone trotting that out.

"I guess my main point is that we can't blame the fashion industry for reflecting our twisted values back to us. As individuals we will and do disagree with the premise, but as a society the acceptance is there. If designers weren't rewarded monetarily, they would change their practices. "

Excellent point, well made.

As a size 0 I can say I DO EXIST. I like this website, but I'm a little disturbed to hear degrading comments about skinny women every time this subject comes up.

I don't think Samhita meant the size 0 reference to be a degrading comment to skinny women. I think she was more making the point that in practical terms there should be no size 0, and that 1 should be the lowest size. I tend to agree with that.

As for the concerns about comments re: women with larger bodies, I tend to agree. It's bad enough that most women in this country are made to feel like freaks; as feminists, I think we have a moral obligation to land on comments like the one above citing "medical" reasons why women over a certain size should be ashamed of their bodies.

Cheers,

TH

i think that something that a lot of people in this thread are TOTALLY missing is whether or not we, as women, LOVE ourselves. F the size charts, F the fashion industry and what have we got left?? a bunch of women bickering about what zero means and what is a health risk and what is not...and a BUNCH of hurt feelings all over the scale. skinny chicks and heavy chicks all deserve respect, no matter what SIZE they are. i feel very strongly that if a woman is destined to having a skinny frame, then she deserves the support to love her body. i also believe that if a woman is destined to be heavier that she deserves the support to love herself. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT WOMEN WILL START TO BECOME HEALTHY. obsessing over sizes and supposed health issues takes up precious time that we have here in our lives (speaking of body-type life spans)...and not a MOMENT should be wasted on criticising body types when it is SO obvious that humans were blessed with so many different shapes! hey, to each their own...and i love all of the women here, no matter WHAT you look like. :) i think the size 20 woman is absolutely stunning in that photo, and there is no doubt that her posture exerts confidence.
i want to know...where did all the love go????

I took the size 0 comment to mean that the fashion industry is pushing for women to lose their identities, not that the women don't exist. And saying that eating too much or too little is unhealthy is hardly reason for people to get offended. I think most people here have granted that people can have larger or smaller frames and still be healthy. All this being offended is getting in the way of an important point.

Wait, did you just tell women to ignore their feelings and experience for the sake of the cause? That's a wacky brand of feminism!

as feminists, I think we have a moral obligation to land on comments like the one above citing "medical" reasons why women over a certain size should be ashamed of their bodies.

Who here is citing medical reasons for women to be ashamed of their bodies?

I have always kept my mouth shut on this issue and tried not be bothered by it generally, but here I go...
Petite people have to deal with social prejudices and limitations. So do people who look or who are a certain age, including youth.
These prejudices are really not that big of a deal in the large scheme of things, so that is probably why you never hear petite people, esp. women, mention it. But this thread seems to be a good time to do it, seeing as it centers on body image and consumer culture.
I, for example, am a 27 year old mother with a peite, curvy/Selma Hyak-esque build, a very youthful face. People generally think that I am a teenager, and treat me as they would treat any other teen-aged mother (you guys probably know what that means).
I think that I look sensational naked, but with clothes on, I look akward and frumpy. Shirts are too tight in the bust but too big everywhere else. Bottoms never fit. Brastraps are too long. I spend tons on alterations, and even that doesn't end well sometimes. Other petites have posted on the lack of market for young petite women.
Trust me, I have attitude and brains. But I honestly feel that people don't give me the respect that I deserve at work, at my son's school, or when shopping.
So if a few size 0 petites are getting offended, try to see where they are coming from.
Everytime i read this site, I see people getting offended over somthing. It drives the argument and generates further discourse. Maybe I think its an unnecessary emotional element, but so what?
Women need to be appreciated in all their diversity. This includes ideas, lifestyles, weight, height, skin color, age,etc. etc.
No a size 0 doesn't mean that identity is gone, but I do agree that this is what the fashion industry wants. Women who forgoe individuality in favor of commerical ideals. This is what most commercial ventures want. Even those that proclaim individuality (like cell phone ringtone ads, perfume ads, etc)
They like to proclaim choice, without giving much of a choice. Frankly, our society relies far too heavily on clues for marketing. (DESTROY YOUR TV!!!)
Jeez, I could give so many amusing/annoying stories about how people have treated me based on appearance. The funny thing about it is that aside, from the height, I am naturally very close to the real world (not runway) ideal shaped woman. Really through no effort of my own. So why don't designers considor me for their market? Why do people tell me to gain weight? Why do people treat me like I'm a kid who has no money to spend, who can't make wise decisions??
And also for the record... Women can be beautiful in so many ways. However, I also want to state that the health risks of eating disorders are very real. This includes obesity. I have no idea why people think that pointing this out is being judgemental or false propganda. Of course some people can be very large and healthy. But, to my knowledge anway, obesity is another story. The health risks are very real in that case. Esp. diabetes. Childhood diabetes in on the rise. Obesity is complicated, as is anorexia/bulemia becuase its not simply a matter of diet. But the risks are real and I think that it is dangerous to pretend that they are not. I'm not at all saying that anyone should be ashamed of their body. That would be harmful. But I do think that people need to take responsibility. You do not have to give in to social or medical pressures to be responsible, but you do need to try to make yourself aware of your situation.
I chose not to breatfeed because of severe pain. Years later I continue to feel somewhat guilty about it, esp. with the ad campaigns in support of it. Some of these ads simply state the health benefits and others go out of there way to make women feel like bad mothers if they don't breastfeed. But I made my choice based on my personal physical needs and feelings, taking into considoration my son. Its not the choice some would make for themselves or their baby, but its the choice that I made. And I stand by it, even if the advertisements sometimes get me down. I know that I'm a gerat mother.

Renee, tankerton made my point better than I could. Obviously I'm not saying people should never be offended -- but I think a lot of people here have been missing the point. Most people here agree that there's not one universal standard ideal of beauty, and lots of women can be beautiful in different ways, while at the same time cautioning that a lot of the models on the runway appear to be unhealthy, which is true. It's silly for someone to then write, "I'm offended. I had chemotherapy for cancer and now I look like that and I'm offended that you don't think I'm beautiful." It completely misses the point. First of all, if you've gone through chemotherapy, etc., you're an amazing and strong and courageous person and should get all kinds of support. But at the same time, I would not say that someone who has been through chemotherapy is the paragon of health. NOT HER FAULT, but it's a fact -- should we all be striving to look like we're fighting a serious illness? Second, no one said these women aren't beautiful. We've just said that the ideal of beauty that is represented should not be a look that is unhealth for most women. So in this case, yes, I think a lot of people are being oversensitive. That doesn't make me anti-feminist, even if it makes me a little harsh.

I'm a 0 does that make me nothing?

"I like this website, but I'm a little disturbed to hear degrading comments about skinny women every time this subject comes up."

I've noticed that too. The "fat is beautiful, skinny is ugly" school of thought seems to reign here. Hypocritical, in my view.

Sorry to add to my already HUGE post. However, i need to clarify the ending.
I breastfeed for 2 months then gave it up b/c pain. i still feel a little guilty about it. I also feel very offended when it is implied that any woman who doesn't breastfeed is not being a good, responsible mother. They don't know what I went through. They don't know that my kid is super healthy and intelligent. They don't know that I'm a great mom who made a very responsible and informed decision.
However, in my last posting I focused on my guilt. In no way did I intend to imply that women should or do feel guilt about their weight. I'm afraid it might have come across that way.
My point was that we do need to look at medical evidence and make informed decisions. If someone is happy being within the realm considored obese, then its fine with me. However, it is irresponsible to just ignore medical science and call it propoganda or insult. But sometimes the advice of a doctor is not the right choice for an individual.
I'm not talking about appearances at all, just health and personal responsibility.

I'm pretty sure Samhita will come in here and say this herself, since a lot of folks don't seem to get her point (and unless I'm delusional, I'm pretty sure I know what it is...).

Samhita was NOT saying that people who are size 0 are nothing.

She was saying that choosing, literally, a value-less number to represent a person's dress size when they are small enough to meet fashion industry specifications sends the message that "size" is something undesirable that women should aspire to annihilate.

Changing the size so that 00 is now 1, 0 is now 2, 1 is now 3, etc. would make a WHALE of a lot more sense. There should never be, in my view, a size 0. That sends the wrong message, both to people who are larger (who "have size") and to some people who are size 0.

It's sort of like how last night I was thinking about why I find the word "colored" so deeply offensive, historical context aside (because I really like the word "negro," which has been used in equally problematic ways), but don't mind "of color." And then I got it: I'm white. "White." Not "bleached," which would be the equivalent to "colored." The implication is that whiteness is the natural state and that achieving white status is based on some kind of purity. That's why I have this visceral reaction to the word "colored."

Well, same story with dress sizes. 0 is purity and nothingness. If you're 1 and up, you have a "size." So there are a lot of reasons not to like the message that having a size 0 sends.

Besides, it's incoherent; a person with a size 0 who doubles her dress size or cuts her dress size in half is still a 0 in numerical terms because zeroes can't be multiplied or divided. So for God's sake, let's at least use real numbers for dress sizes and cut out this 0 foolishness.

Cheers,

TH

My take on the size zero phenomenon is that it allows women who are dissatisfied with their weight to wear a smaller "size" without any of the effort involved in fitting into a smaller size ("I used to be a size 20, but now I'm a size 14, without the hassle of dieting or exercising".)

It's kinda like those "weight loss" pills that claim to allow you to lose weight without changing your lifestyle.

It takes advantage of the trend in our society to look for the "quick fix" without any effort involved. I don't think that the fashion industry is the cause of this trend, but they certainly are trying to profit from it.

Besides, it's incoherent; a person with a size 0 who doubles her dress size or cuts her dress size in half is still a 0 in numerical terms because zeroes can't be multiplied or divided. So for God's sake, let's at least use real numbers for dress sizes and cut out this 0 foolishness.

First, a little mathematical nitpick: 0 is a real number. I don't think there's any danger of the fashion industry making size i clothes. On the other hand, now that I think about it, since it makes no sense to say that one complex number is greater than another (is 1 > i?), maybe introducing them to the fashion industry will solve the "Oh, she's thinner than me, I must diet myself to starvation" problem...

Second, most sizes are already completely arbitrary. A woman whose dress size is 2 can double her size to 4 without much trouble; a woman whose size is 12 can't without massively increasing her weight. In statistics-speak, we'd say that clothing sizes are interval but not ratio variables - that is, it makes sense to say "I increased two sizes" (compare that with small/medium/large, or low-/middle-/high-income) but not "I doubled my size."

It's sort of like how last night I was thinking about why I find the word "colored" so deeply offensive, historical context aside (because I really like the word "negro," which has been used in equally problematic ways), but don't mind "of color."

Actually, I have a similar visceral reaction to "of color." Pale pink is a color. I prefer using the term "nonwhite," which makes it clear that ethnically, nonwhite people aren't defined by anything but not being white.

"Actually, I have a similar visceral reaction to "of color." Pale pink is a color. I prefer using the term "nonwhite," which makes it clear that ethnically, nonwhite people aren't defined by anything but not being white."

Lol, well, just since I like to be ornery, I think that's just as problematic if not moreso. Why should white set the standard? We don't we call ourselves nonblack?

To clarify, I don't think the "quick fix" trend is confined to women only.

I have been the same weight and size for the last 10 years (due to effort on my part, not dumb luck). But in the past 5 years or so, I have noticed a difference in men's clothing sizes. In the past, where small, medium, and large sizes are concerned, I used to wear large approximately 75% of the time, and extra-large 25% of the time. But nowadays the split is about 50% large and 50% medium. But in clothing measured in inches, I still wear the same sizes.

I believe it's the same as the size 0 phenomenon; "hey hun, I'm down to a large now without all that sissy dieting and exercise that know-nothing doctor was telling me to do".

Lol, well, just since I like to be ornery, I think that's just as problematic if not moreso. Why should white set the standard? We don't we call ourselves nonblack?

I like it because it makes it clear that the standard is arbitrary. Nobody talks of males and nonmales, because it's understood that there's a positive definition of females.

The reason it makes sense to talk of whites and nonwhites rather than blacks and nonblacks is simply a matter of oppression. Right now, the system of racial oppression in most of the West is white/nonwhite. In one of the race threads on this blog someone mentioned, and I agree, that in the US it's likely that Hispanics and Asians will be fully accepted way before blacks; in that case it'll make more sense to talk of blacks and nonblacks.

Well, I see what you're saying, it does work in a descriptive sense -- but shouldn't we seek through language to tear down rather than reinforce negative stereotypes and connotations? Language absolutely makes a difference here -- if you're defining people as having a "white" standard to measure up to on the very very BASIC level of language, how are we supposed to overcome this in the real world?

Oh, also, there's a fair argument that "female" is really no different from "nonmale" -- why isn't there a completely different word? Why is it "male" with a slightly different prefix?

Coming to Japan really makes you realise just how messed up the west is about weight- we have way too much of it going around, and way too few honest views on it. The Japanese have no such delusions - they all want to be skinny, and they all want to stay skinny. They find the size of Westerners and the amount we eat quite amazing.

Most Westerners don't have the same type of bone structure as the Japanese. You can't very well expect people to shave their bones in order to conform to another culture's ideal, can you?

Sure, a lot of Westerners DO eat more, but it's unfair to compare the relatively youthful Austrailian or American cultures to a much older one. I'm sure eventually we'll deal with the growing pains and become a healthier as a whole, but there are way too many economic and geographical factors in our lifestyle to blame one thing or the other.

Actually, the male/female thing is a coincidence. Female derives from a diminutive of femina, the Latin word for woman; male derives from a contraction of masculus, the Latin word for male (but the more gender-neutral word for person was homine).

What's not a coincidence is woman/man. In Old English, man meant person, wer meant male, and wif meant female; then wif alone became wife, wif compounded with man to became wifman and eventually woman, wer disappeared, and man took over both the general and the masculine meaning.

Anyway, about white/nonwhite, I think the term "people of color" reinforces another stereotype, namely that it makes sense to group all nonwhites. In a way, it allows white people to other nonwhites without ever explicitly saying that they evaluate them by white standards.

Thanks for the interesting mini-course in linguistics ;) I hadn't realized that about "male" and "female" -- although I do think there are different ways we could form the words, deriving them from Latin, that don't cause female to appear to mean, male, but a little different. But then I have problems with LOTS of our modern words :)

I agree with you one hundred percent on the "people of color" thing. I understand that it's to unify oppressed minorities, but it is a little troubling -- it reinforces the stereotype of "white" people, where white is generally associate with clean, good, etc., as importantly different from all the "others," or people of color. Descriptively, given our social context, it makes sense because caucasians aren't oppressed the way that other ethnicities are. But I agree that these terms are still somewhat problematized.

I have a quick question that I've been wondering about for a long time -- Why is it ANYONE'S business whether or not someone else's body is "unhealthy"? This comes up SO often as a defense of people's reaction of disgust when they see someone "fat," and then we get into this whole "well some people can be that size and not unhealthy" debate, which I think is missing a crucial point -- even IF this person's eating habits and lack of exercise ARE giving them XYZ health problems, what business is it of yours? Do you stop to lecture every smoker you see on the street about the dangers of cancer, or at least react with the same kind of disgust? Why is it anyone here's business whether or not this model has high blood pressure? That's what makes me so uncomfortable about this whole thing -- the impression it gives is that if your body does not live up to societal standards, then you forfeit your privacy and decision-making powers over your own body.

There are two different answers to your question. One is that it's nobody's business. If I can avoid telling people to stop smoking for their own good, everyone can avoid telling people to diet to a BMI of 21 for their own good (even though the optimum appears to be somewhat higher).

But as with smoking, it's legitimate to criticize a culture or an economic system that contributes to unhealthy habits. Americans aren't the fattest people in the world because they choose to be fat, but because they have little access to healthy food, little information about which foods are healthiest, few opportunities to exercise, and often no means to eat anything other than junk food. There's nothing wrong with agitating for giving people more access to good food. And that's just on the economic side; there's also a huge cultural component contributing to obesity.

There's a big difference between saying "smoking is unhealthy" and nagging someone to stop smoking.

Similarly, there's a big difference between saying "obesity is unhealthy" and nagging someone not to eat so much.

white/nonwhite, people of no color/people of color, nonblack/black are all problematic nomenclatures but these groupings and coalitions will exist until there is no more racism.

size 0 is problematic not those who are size 0 but the nomenclature. men don't have size 0 -- they have sizes like 34, 35, 36 -- then again we are socially conditioned to desire size in men and slenderness in women.

so it's social conditioning not people that is problematic.

Law Fairy -- There absolutely is, and on a public health level I think it's important to designate clearly what things are generally unhealthy. However, I think that saying "obesity is unhealthy" *in reaction* to seeing a particular "obese" person blurs the line between public health issues and body-shaming, and I'm skeptical every time I see a discussion of obesity as a societal health issue arise in that manner. Those sentiments are used so many times to justify some seriously repugnant condescension and rudeness. Telling someone (or implying to them) in a snidely matter-of-fact way that they should be ashamed of their own "unhealthy" body is not going to "help" them in any way, and I'm suspect of anyone who suddenly feels compelled to "help" people out of some sudden sense of civic duty whenever they have to deal with their own sense of unease in reaction to "fat" people.

Alon -- You're absolutely right, and it really is a damn shame that quality food is a luxury in this country.

becca, I think it's just an associational issue. I'm not aware of anyone on here who's been trying to "shame" people who are obese... though if I'm incorrect then I agree, that's inappropriate. But just like a picture of the Marlboro Man might reasonably spark a discussion about the dangers of smoking, so the picture of a woman who *appears* as though she *might* be obese might reasonably spark a discussion about obesity.

"even IF this person's eating habits and lack of exercise ARE giving them XYZ health problems, what business is it of yours?"

The Canadian Institute of Health Research (a government agency) states:

"obesity, and its related health disorders and impacts, is a complex and challenging health issue with grave implications for individuals and whole populations. In Canada, a conservative estimate of the total direct cost of overweight and obesity was $1.8 billion in 1997. We now know that obesity leads to decreased life expectancy, poor health and limits quality of life. It also inhibits the overall dynamism of Canadian society and contributes to growing health care costs, and diminished national productivity."

Canadian science and medicine do not believe in the "healthy at any weight" theory (the medical problems associated with excess weight are considered fact, not theory) This, plus the fact that we have universal health care, makes the medical costs of obesity a societal issue as well as a personal issue.

It's the same thinking behind the anti-smoking and anti-drug movements or seat belt and helmet laws; self-destructive behavior by individuals costs society as a whole.

RM -- I have never said that I didn't think obesity is a serious public health issue, nor am I ascribing to any sort of "healthy at any weight" mindset. Alls I'm sayin' is that these sorts of discussions should go on in a generalized, strictly-public-health manner, not as criticism of any individual's personal appearance/health/genetics/choices/etc.

Wow, that model is awesome-looking. So pretty! If I had her hips, I'd rock that lingerie with no problem. (I'm roundabout a size 20, but I don't have her frame.)

I think it'd kill fashion designers to make clothes that look nice on all body types. Their talent doesn't stretch that far.

"Alls I'm sayin' is that these sorts of discussions should go on in a generalized, strictly-public-health manner, not as criticism of any individual's personal appearance/health/genetics/choices/etc."

I think when individual choices are creating a public health problem, you have to discuss (and perhaps criticize) those choices.

"Alls I'm sayin' is that these sorts of discussions should go on in a generalized, strictly-public-health manner, not as criticism of any individual's personal appearance/health/genetics/choices/etc."

They're called concern trolls.

BETTER LATE THEN NEVER
Hi,
I realise I'm well late in the game here but given I am the model pictured here and happened upon this site I couldn't help but to drop a note.
I went to JPG's model casting only because he was having his 30 year retrospective and in fact he had used plus models wayyyyyy back in the 80's, so as it was the retrospective, he was hearkening back to that era. However, we hit it off rather well and he was able to see from my portfolio that I am quite comfortable with the skin I'm in. I am also a size acceptance advocate, and was hardly shy about speaking with Jean Paul about my feelings towards the fashion industry.
As many are struck by the fact that I am the size I am, (5'8 300lbs-ish,)and yet truly love Me, he was too, and chose to put me in, (rather then the two average size Plus models who also went out for the casting).
He has had the plus model Crystal Renn, (in the previous season I believe), for all of you longing for an 'average' size woman, versus myself, far beyond average,lol. This of course went largely unnoticed.
As did the fact that the show included a gorgeous model from the Master's division of my model agency (Contrebande) who was a senior citizen, and a stunning one at that.
Its hardly the first time I have been relegated to 'freak show' status. The reality is that by virtue of the near total exclusion of women my size in any media outlet, there are going to be people who automatically react with derision, or perceive my inclusion as some kind of bad joke, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Is it so hard to accept JPG's given reason for including me in the show, that he wanted to show that 'women of all sizes/ages are beautiful'?
He is one of the very few highly inclusive designers, be it race, age or size and one needs merely to look at the retrospective to confirm that.
As far as the skinny ban, I have said time and again, I am in fact, against it because its just as prejudice to ban skinny, as it is to ban fat.
I do find it intriguing the number of people so dead set against my inclusion based on it being perceived as glorifying obesity, versus celebrating Loving oneself. The assumption that all obese people are unhealthy, and all thin models are ideals of health (which is what is clearly implied by the fact that runway shows exist decade after decade, with run of the mill thin models, with little debate, yet once my fat ass hits the runway everyone is up in arms) is to me utterly laughable.
Last I checked there's more involved in sizing up someones health beyond an outward glance, (have you heard of waist to hip ratio for instance)? And lets be honest, if we were so obsessed by health then explain to me why it is that Kate Moss, Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Britney Spears, and Lindsey Lohan are on the cover of every magazine? Media certainly isn't banning them from view based on a lack of health (be it mental or physical). Yet my obese appearance incites calls for Average versus my extremely large, beyond 'normal' frame FOR ONCE gracing a runway. Actually, that's inaccurate, I graced John Galliano's runway the previous season yet no one reamed him for popping me onstage.
And speaking of health, what about our mental health, what about loving yourself as you are what aire your size may be? How many thin women while appearing outwardly 'healthy' suffer from hating their bodies? Same goes for fat women.
I believe firmly in celebrating our diversity, in celebrating ourselves. Trust me when I say, I would never take to any runway were I to perceive that this inclusion was based on a designers desire to debase me. My reason for modelling in the first place, is simply because I am sick and tired of having ZERO representation in media of women of my size, as well as my age (40).
There are many occasions where magazines or TV shows etc include a woman who is a size 14 ('average')as a token to fat inclusion, versus actually using a fat body like my own. Which is rather unnerving to those couple billion of us who happen to actually BE fat. So again, I praise Gauthier for actually using a genuine grade A fatty like myself!
I love my body and I don't ask that everyone love it, its enough for me to love it! The fact that Galliano and Gauthier happen to dig it too is icing on the cake.
I had the good fortune to speak my views in this month's BUST magazine (not that I can actually score a copy here in Paris but hey!) and I consider myself a proud feminist.
All the best to all of you who took the time to share your opinions,
Velvet

BETTER LATE THEN NEVER
Hi,
I realise I'm well late in the game here but given I am the model pictured here and happened upon this site I couldn't help but to drop a note.
I went to JPG's model casting only because he was having his 30 year retrospective and in fact he had used plus models wayyyyyy back in the 80's, so as it was the retrospective, he was hearkening back to that era. However, we hit it off rather well and he was able to see from my portfolio that I am quite comfortable with the skin I'm in. I am also a size acceptance advocate, and was hardly shy about speaking with Jean Paul about my feelings towards the fashion industry.
As many are struck by the fact that I am the size I am, (5'8 300lbs-ish,)and yet truly love Me, he was too, and chose to put me in, (rather then the two average size Plus models who also went out for the casting).
He has had the plus model Crystal Renn, (in the previous season I believe), for all of you longing for an 'average' size woman, versus myself, far beyond average,lol. This of course went largely unnoticed.
As did the fact that the show included a gorgeous model from the Master's division of my model agency (Contrebande) who was a senior citizen, and a stunning one at that.
Its hardly the first time I have been relegated to 'freak show' status. The reality is that by virtue of the near total exclusion of women my size in any media outlet, there are going to be people who automatically react with derision, or perceive my inclusion as some kind of bad joke, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Is it so hard to accept JPG's given reason for including me in the show, that he wanted to show that 'women of all sizes/ages are beautiful'?
He is one of the very few highly inclusive designers, be it race, age or size and one needs merely to look at the retrospective to confirm that.
As far as the skinny ban, I have said time and again, I am in fact, against it because its just as prejudice to ban skinny, as it is to ban fat.
I do find it intriguing the number of people so dead set against my inclusion based on it being perceived as glorifying obesity, versus celebrating Loving oneself. The assumption that all obese people are unhealthy, and all thin models are ideals of health (which is what is clearly implied by the fact that runway shows exist decade after decade, with run of the mill thin models, with little debate, yet once my fat ass hits the runway everyone is up in arms) is to me utterly laughable.
Last I checked there's more involved in sizing up someones health beyond an outward glance, (have you heard of waist to hip ratio for instance)? And lets be honest, if we were so obsessed by health then explain to me why it is that Kate Moss, Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, Britney Spears, and Lindsey Lohan are on the cover of every magazine? Media certainly isn't banning them from view based on a lack of health (be it mental or physical). Yet my obese appearance incites calls for Average versus my extremely large, beyond 'normal' frame FOR ONCE gracing a runway. Actually, that's inaccurate, I graced John Galliano's runway the previous season yet no one reamed him for popping me onstage.
And speaking of health, what about our mental health, what about loving yourself as you are what aire your size may be? How many thin women while appearing outwardly 'healthy' suffer from hating their bodies? Same goes for fat women.
I believe firmly in celebrating our diversity, in celebrating ourselves. Trust me when I say, I would never take to any runway were I to perceive that this inclusion was based on a designers desire to debase me. My reason for modelling in the first place, is simply because I am sick and tired of having ZERO representation in media of women of my size, as well as my age (40).
There are many occasions where magazines or TV shows etc include a woman who is a size 14 ('average')as a token to fat inclusion, versus actually using a fat body like my own. Which is rather unnerving to those couple billion of us who happen to actually BE fat. So again, I praise Gauthier for actually using a genuine grade A fatty like myself!
I love my body and I don't ask that everyone love it, its enough for me to love it! The fact that Galliano and Gauthier happen to dig it too is icing on the cake.
I had the good fortune to speak my views in this month's BUST magazine (not that I can actually score a copy here in Paris but hey!) and I consider myself a proud feminist.
All the best to all of you who took the time to share your opinions,
Velvet