
I can't help but feel a tad bitter about
Glamour magazine's new "beautiful at every size" mantra, spawned by the rave reviews they got from men and women alike when they included this picture of model
Lizzi Miller in their September issue:

Yes, she's gorgeous. Yes, she has a tummy. But, um, also: a) she's nude and b) she's obviously, like most "plus-sized" models, a tall drink of, if not water, whole milk. Of course people responded positively to this image. It's sexy! It radiates confidence. (Which is, duh, sexy.) But let's face it - printing pictures of tall naked girls, even if they are a size 14, is not exactly groundbreaking feminism in action. Let's not forget that Glamour exists to play on its readers insecurities so its advertisers can sell its readers a bevy of beauty products. It's just that now they're inviting fat girls to the party. And why not? Big girls have money, too!
Showing images of "real women" in its pages is in Glamour's best interest, because it just opens up their subscriber base. Glamour's target market has always been (somewhat affluent) 18 to 34-year-old women in metropolitan areas. Sure, they occasionally run "Be fabulous at 40!" features, but 45-year-old Irene Jones in Des Moines is not buying Dolce & Gabbana, and Conde Nast knows it. Even in Manhattan, the 35 and older set is a bit beyond Glamour's reach. (Perhaps by then it's time to move on to Vogue, or Vanity Fair, if you're a thinker.) I remember sitting in the waiting room at my OBGYN when I was 8 months pregnant, reading a copy of Glamour I'd brought with me to the appointment. When the doctor came out to get me, she said, "You still read Glamour? Oh, God. That'll change soon enough." Like any indignant young girl, I thought, "But I'm still gonna be cool after I have a baby." For the first year, maybe. But two years of pre-school and a divorce later, I'm here to say, I know exactly what you mean, doc.
What is not in Glamour's best interest, however, is telling "real women," or un-real women for that matter, that they are whole, beautiful people in their natural state, sans hair products, makeup and clothing. Glamour sells hair products, makeup and clothing. The entire magazine is advertainment/infotising. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I just hate to see a wolf in sheep's clothing. Glamour's self-congratulatory attitude about the whole thing is just a bit much. It's like the skinny, perfect, popular girl who feels like a humanitarian for inviting the dorky, chubby girl to her sleepover. "Ugly girl at the sleepover, check. Next stop, world peace!"
That being said, I did buy the November issue, "in support of the cause." The attached article has some interesting quotes in it, including this one by assistant editor Margarita Bertsos.
"Being told that I must occupy Barbie proportions in order to be beautiful is definitely not what motivated me to lose weight. In fact, those beliefs are what kept me obese for so many years. It's when I made the shift toward self-acceptance that I finally found the motivation to lose weight."
Now, before visions of Mo'Nique start filling your brain, let me say I am not against thin women, nor being fit. If you follow my blog, you know that I just started a
45for45 challenge, during which I will exercise 45 minutes a day for 45 consecutive days. The idea of being truly strong again is really exciting to me. But I have no desire to be "skinny." I never have. I delight in being curvy, which is why Glamour's sudden acceptance of Rubenesque broads rubs me the wrong way. Three years ago,
I was fired from Glamour's Would You Dare shoot for being too fat. So just like the nerdy girl at the sleepover, I'll eat your popcorn, Glamour, but I'll never forget the time you pushed me in the hallway at school.