Also - they need to stop all the airbrushing - I don't think that helps peoples perception of what is real... though I wish I could get them to do it on all photos of me... :-)
Well, such magazines have been available for a while in the US, one that used to be carried in Lane Bryant stores (and is no longer in print) was M O D E (mentioned here ) which was done quite like a high fashion mag like Vogue and such. The fantastic thing about this magazine is that it in addition to fashion, it had "healthy lifestyle" type tips including balanced nutrition (as opposed to weight loss diet) as well as job stress, relationship issues etc etc... just like any other woman's magazine.
On one hand I agree, it is a bit much of a "niche" thing... a better idea would be to use women of all sizes in "normal" fashion magazines and not just for the special "every size" issues.
Cover of M O D E featuring Kate Dillon.. who entered the scene as a mainstream model (including anorexia) about the same time as Kate Moss: I know this isn't necessarily what everyone considers "beautiful" but she is simply amazing to me. She eats as is normal for her AND works out to maintain her health... she just doesn't starve herself like she used to and "naturally" is a size 14 or 16.
On the other hand, I think that showing off "plus size" women in a way that showcases their beauty and potential really can be a boost for them. Showing them what kind of fashion is available, how to put clothes together that accentuates the positive aspects of their appearance is important too...
We all know that something that looks great on Kate Moss isn't going to look as good on Kate Dillon but there is no reason why someone who is above size 10 should remain virtually clueless how to dress themselves "properly" for a variety of occasions. Fashion magazines have long told women where they can find fashion to suit them from which designer... fewer women know that plenty of designers have jumped on board with making plus size clothes.
In addition to not knowing that there are actual designer label plus size clothing available, many many women do not know that there is a difference in how such clothing is made. A woman or girl who is size 14 and shops at the junior or miss department is actually at a style (as opposed to "fashion") disadvantage to a woman who actually buys plus size clothing from shops such as Lane Bryant. The cut IS different and IS designed to flatter.
Anyhow... laundry calling, maybe I'll have more thoughts later. Hopefully this was relatively coherent anyhow.
I've read a variety of magazines off and on over the years, most "fashion" mags are fairly short-lived, no matter their target. I wouldn't say they were any less or more successful than M O D E .
Unfortunately, although there ARE fashions from Armani, Ralph Lauren, Liz Claiborne, Tommy Hilfiger and others, as well as "haute coutre" type designs, they tend to be more of a "feature" thing to highlight in other magazines (Glamour, Vogue, Elle, etc) rather than being part of the mainstream fashion spreads.
Unless and until they incorporate all of those fashions on all sizes of people in a majority of their spreads, there will continue to be attempts at publishing and marketing magazines with that specific plus size market... even though for most of us, our peer group tends to comprise of people of every age, shape and color. The only company I can think of to even come close to doing that is Dove ( campaign for real beauty ), and they are about skin care / beauty as opposed to fashion / beauty.
Some musings......Some of you helped me with a body image survey a couple of months ago. I've put the survey out in the field, and I can tell you that among young women at a US university, at least 70% compare themselves to models, actresses and etc, and want to look like them.
If you look at models and actresses in the US, most of them are thinner than 98% of the rest of the female population for a given height. Add that to the fact that these already thinner women are often airbrushed in magazine ads. There's a great example from Ann Taylor, a retailer in the US, where already thin models were further airbrushed.
So the norm, in the US is body dissatisfaction, and if someone says she's happy with the way she looks, eyebrows fly upward. Women aren't supposed to be satisfied with the way they look. Calvin Klein (who has since sold his name to a clothing manufacturer who makes larger sizes) once said that any women above a size 12 (US) should be ashamed of herself.
But anyway, one of the problems with singling out "plus sizes" is that women don't want to be treated as "special," because they require a larger size. "Plus size" sales in upscale US stores happen online a lot. Physical departments fail. I think that if a magazine treats all women as potentially beautiful and not "special" then it will do well. Many women don't want to go to the fat lady store, or the fat lady department and maybe they don't want to read the fat lady magazine either. There are some really interesting reasons why women read fashion magazines, and I'm trying to understand some of this in my own research.
But if this new magazine is going to treat all women as beautiful, and not offer useless dieting advice, then maybe it will do well. I hope it does. I'd like to see a mix of shapes and sizes and colors and textures in the magazine.
This week, I read a quote by Linda Bacon, an American who is an advocate for healthy eating and exercise, but who also tries to explain why dieting fails so often, and why you should concentrate on health first. Her book, "Health at Every Size", is great, IMHO.
The quote.
Your body is amazing because it houses you!
Brigitte (a popular fashion mag in germany) started to only use 'street models' for their covers and productions (without airbrushing). I like this initiative! These girls are pretty and fit but not anorexic.
A big pro: you can see the fashion items on a woman of your own size. Some cuts only look good on very thin girls and when I would wear that....
This magazine, as with all magazines, caters to a specific niche... This niche is becoming larger and larger as the "obesity epidemic" grows. I think it is a non-issue that they have created a magazine that focuses on plus-sizes instead of say hunters, dog lovers, or young teens. Those that are interested will pay for it and read it. And the success (or potential success) of a magazine like this could open the market up to more magazines of the same genre... This would then (perhaps) make more "normal-looking" women more mainstream--which, in my opinion, would not be a bad thing. This is only if it is successful, however.
I was focused enough on the fashion and public image aspect of the magazine itself yesterday that I missed this.
♥ JLF
While I am not entirely happy with my level of fitness now, or with the clothing options I have - the size I am when I AM at my fittest is NOT size 4, or even size 8.
Because of my body type and perhaps the types of activity I enjoy, ever since gaining a feminine figure, when I am "fit" I am a size 12 - 14. Even when I am exercising on a regular basis, such as when I spent all my free time swimming and bicycling to get there back in my youth, I still had to wear D+ bras... there's no way to stuff those into anything smaller than an "XL" top, well, unless I wanted to look like a hooker.
My legs and calves have always been "thick" and muscular. While I could wear boys pants up until age 11, that all changed after age 13 (the time between was interesting for sure ).
While for some, "fitness" (together with balanced eating habits) DOES come in a size 6, for plenty of others it does not. And, I refuse to believe that true fitness on a woman who is 5'8" and taller (fashion model height) comes in anything smaller than a size 6 and even that is pushing it... I think true fitness on a woman that tall would look more like a size 10.
Unfortunately for us, there is a lot more variation in physique - for a woman who is 5'10" (178cm) - at size 10 than there is at sizes 0 - 4 so of course, there will be continued desire to use models that are so thin - you don't have to use darting in the bust or hips, or pay attention to where her actual waist is for models who have "boyish" figures after all.
Of course , a woman who is 5'2" or below and wears a size 2 - 6 would likely be curvy... but women who are that "short" generally aren't used as fashion models either.
But you make a really good point...
Women are very diverse... all different sizes, heights, weights, colors. But what do we have for comparison? Young, digitally enhanced size 2's without flaws. And whether or not someone is fit and healthy is not always evident in a 2 dimensional photo or on TV. Besides, fit and healthy is not necessarily consistent with fashionable, but we've made the size 2 beautiful person consistent with the good life and all that is desirable.
And who says that clothing looks best on a straight up and down tall, skinny woman? And why do we have to buy into that notion?
So if this magazine promotes a diversity of sizes, shapes, heights and looks, it would be interesting. Whether it will do well, that's another question.
As far as obesity, I'll say this till I turn blue... but one of the biggest contributors to obesity is dieting. Especially for women who hover around that overweight - obese measure as defined by BMI. (Not getting into fast food, lack of exercise and all that). You diet, your body becomes more efficient, you stop dieting, you pack on weight. You cycle. It gets worse. Instead, regular, moderate exercise and moderation in eating - and what you need to do so you can be healthy at a wide range of sizes is so much better. And, accepting that you can be attractive now, at your current size. SO I'm glad this magazine won't be handing out useless dieting advice. And I hope it won't accept advertising from commercial dieting concerns.
Oh, yeah, Peg, you're right about short women as fashion models. However, short women can be actresses, and they do well on TV. Especially if their small bodies makes their heads appear even larger.