The label that's insulting to women of all sizes

<i></i>

In an interview with Clique magazine last week, model Robyn Lawley argued that the label 'plus size' shouldn’t apply to her because she is no larger than the average woman. “People say, ‘How is she a plus-size model?’ and I'm like, ‘Exactly, this is the point, how am I a plus-size model?’”

The 24-year-old later said the ‘derogatory’ term should be done away with altogether, because it was nothing more than a label used to define people. (Interestingly, Lawley once asserted that it was skinny models should be called ‘minus size’, to much fanfare).

I’m all for doing away with meaningless labels, but Lawley (who has been much heralded across all manner of publications, from Jezebel to NY Mag and Buzzfeed) is hardly a revolutionary on the barricades of women’s empowerment. She is a phenomenally beautiful woman who’s paid to wear clothes and walk down a runway.

Model Robyn Lawley.

Model Robyn Lawley.

And plus size or not, the fact is that neither she nor Crystal Renn, Sophia Dahl, Kate Upton or any of the other women seen as outliers in an industry which typically favours a size 0 or less are champions for diversity.

They may not be on the skinny side of thin, but their beauty is similarly uniform in other ways. They are overwhelmingly white and tall. They have excellent bone structure. And they are, as Lawley argues of those size 10 models stuck in the no-man’s land between a straight size and a plus size, ‘completely in proportion’. In terms of aspirational beauty, most women have about as much chance of looking like Robyn Lawley as they do Kate Moss at the height of heroin chic.  

In fact, Lawley is correct when she says that 'model' is the only label which should apply to her -- because when I see her posing in a swimsuit from her new line, I don’t think, “Isn’t it marvellous that someone like me is wearing a bikini in Cosmopolitan!” I think, “Oh look, a model.”

The success of Lawley and her contemporaries appeals to a misguided perception that their presence is somehow a win for the normals among us who are made to feel too much of everything that’s supposed to be bad - too fat, too ugly, too shapeless, too soft, too hairy, too skinny, too too too. And how have we chosen to target that machine which profits from our self loathing? By holding on to the fundamental messages it peddle. 

Our attempts to reject these ideals have somehow been twisted and co-opted by the industries themselves, repackaged to us as a brand of positive, You Go Girl empowerment that instructs us of our inherent right to feel beautiful.

We now demand to be included in its practices of objectification to the detriment of ourselves and each other, as if it is our invisibility in the system that is the real problem and not the reduction of our worth to physical attributes. Models like Lawley (whose proportions have been described as ‘perfect’) are supposed to make us feel better about ourselves not worse, simply because they have buxom breasts and curvy waists.

When I clock the amount of hours I’ve spent obsessing over my body and all its myriad ‘faults’, I don’t just feel exhausted. I also feel angry. But I doubt very much that growing up with People Who Look Just Like Me in magazines would have bolstered the self-esteem I struggled with.

There is no fixed size (or age) at which girls and women start to hate their bodies -- and unless we lived in a marketing vacuum, it's near impossible to escape the messages which tell us that if we buy this shampoo, eat this food, exercise in these clothes, lose this weight and wear these shoes that we will finally feel like we’re good enough to claim space in the world.

So while I agree with Lawley that labels such as ‘plus size’ should be done away with, let’s not kid ourselves that such a move alone would signify a more inclusive, less judgmental environment for women.

One of the best tricks the patriarchy ever played on us was distracting us with the obsession of physical beauty, encouraging us to view other women as threats because they happen to fit whatever standard of attraction this decade says is ‘in’. It is so boring to have the same conversations over and over again about how every woman is gorgeous and deserves to feel that way. Are we really so shallow as to have made that our priority?

What all women fundamentally deserve to feel is valued for their contributions to the world, regardless of whether they sport a sizeable thigh gap or have a thick layer of fur covering legs the size of tree trunks.

Liberation won’t come by seeking to define both of these things and all that sits between them as beautiful. It will come by making them absolutely irrelevant to our perception of self-worth. Perhaps then we can start viewing models for what they are, which is neither ambassadors for the women’s cause nor traitors to it - merely, beautiful women in interesting clothes, doing a job just like any other.

 

69 comments

  • Agreed.

    Part of a feminist awakening probably should involve the idea that we don't really need to rewrite standards of beauty or insist that everyone is beautiful. I am certainly not beautiful - borderline obesity, a childhood resplendent with frequent accidents and a high pain tolerance, and congenital bone and heart deformities mean I am not conventionally beautiful. What is more important is to challenge the idea that you *have* to be beautiful to be valued, or that other people have to see you as beautiful.

    I don't give two rats roots as to whether people find me beautiful or not. I certainly don't think they should be shamed into it by this idea that we are harmed irrevocably by not being seen as beautiful, because that perpetuates the idea that beauty is the most important thing to have as a woman. My contribution to the broader community through my work is the most important thing I do and have, and I am fine with that.

    (Also, a fiery and painful death to anyone who says all women have power because of their beauty. Way to abrogate your own personal responsibility and agency, douchecanoe.)

    Commenter
    teacher
    Date and time
    January 28, 2014, 8:23AM
    • Speaking of personal responsibility...

      'One of the best tricks the patriarchy ever played on us was distracting us with the obsession of physical beauty, encouraging us to view other women as threats because they happen to fit whatever standard of attraction this decade says is ‘in’. '

      How about seeing this as an issue we are all responsible for rather than just the 'patriarchy'?

      Are you trying to convince us that only me edit womens magazines? That only men are responsible for setting trends and defining agendas? That women arent themselves furthering this competition?

      So all women are innocent of being obsessed by physical beauty or seeing other women as threatening based on their appearance and have no say in defining standards of attraction.

      Take some responsibility instead of giving away all your power to the patriarchy to define your terms of imprisonment.

      See how quickly these issues disappear when all women stop chasing these 'values'.

      Blaming the patriarchy is just ridiculous.

      Commenter
      TK
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 11:12AM
    • I am with you teacher. The older I get, the less I care about superficial appearance. Being superficially beautiful (and skinny) has more to do with winning the genetic lottery than anything. I am sure that if we all had a choice, I think we would secretly prefer to be good looking and skinny than not. Having said that, some of the most truly beautiful people that I have known were those that you wouldn't look at twice. Sadly, females bear the brunt of having to be "pretty" and our society does nothing to rid itself of this scourge (we are taught that being pretty and thin is desirable from the moment we are born). I can't see anything changing in a hurry, but I am happy as I am (not being pretty is akin to being invisible and I am quite happy being invisible).

      Commenter
      Jasmine
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 11:34AM
    • so well said!

      Commenter
      MaryK
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 11:39AM
    • +1

      I would have thought that the first part of a feminist awakening would be to stop with the relentless hero-worship of fashion models and regurgitation of their every throw-away line.

      What are Helen Caldicott, Anne Summer, Janet Yellen or Fiona Wood saying this week? I'd be much more interesting in reading about that than about any model, size notwithstanding.

      Commenter
      Red Pony
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 12:32PM
    • Teacher, I just have to say your comments are always so thoughtful and I appreciate them very much.

      I agree completely, we shouldn't define a person's worth based on what they look like. (I never understand the justification for things like the arbitrary "1 to 10" scale that seems to get trotted out)

      Commenter
      AmyG
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 2:38PM
  • Couldn't agree more. Lawley is one of the most beautiful people going around, and it's been proven that men and women alike prefer curves. Marilyn Monroe was a size 14. Women of all shapes are beautiful.

    Commenter
    Strahany
    Location
    Melbourne
    Date and time
    January 28, 2014, 9:01AM
    • Um, did we read the article?

      Commenter
      Josie
      Location
      Surry Hills
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 11:10AM
    • Marilyn Monroe was not a size 14. She was initially a size 8 and then later a 10: http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.asp

      As for preferring curvy have a look at the type of women men with the most choice available to them choose (billionaires, movie stars and rock stars) - typically supermodels and Victoria's Secret Angels. These women are the pinnacle of beauty. Rather than trying to redefine beauty or acceptance us lesser beings just need to accept our position.

      Commenter
      Bender
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 11:18AM
    • Um...I don't think you've really grasped the point of the post.

      Commenter
      JEM
      Location
      Melb
      Date and time
      January 28, 2014, 11:32AM

More comments

Comments are now closed