|
Columns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
The Adipositivity Project takes on "Glamour" and the rest of the thin-is-best worldIf you've already read Jamie's incisive blog from last week about Glamour's alarming and hypocritical treatment of the beautiful America Ferrera, you may be in as much need of an antidote as I am. Just in time, via Feministing, I came across a website specifically aiming to counteract the messages that Glamour and so many other media outlets persist in pushing. Here it is: The Adipositivity Project. The site presents images of women taken by professional photographer Substantia Jones (not her real name, just a darn cool pseudonym), who writes, "The Adipositivity Project: Trying to change attitudes about the aesthetic validity of big women, one fat fanny at a time."
The images are smart, sexy and — as is the point — aesthetically gorgeous. No underhanded insults (Fit Light Yogurt, I'm looking at you), no false hope about Hollywood's love for big women, no unfounded accusations of weight (Ferrera, who points out that she is quite normal-sized, is indeed too small to appear in this crowd of actually large women). The pictures speak for themselves.
The gallery is limited so far, particularly in terms of diversity, but it's a tremendous start. I appreciate the fact that Jones doesn't try to fetishize and doesn't try to justify; she stays away from the health debate altogether and simply tries to normalize. Because of that aim, I do wonder why she doesn't publish under her own name, but who am I to point fingers? The web is a tricky place in an altogether tricky world. Similarly, I question her decision to include bodies only, no faces, which seems to buy into famously anti-feminist attitudes. However, she explains: One reason for [the exclusion of faces] is to coax observers into imagining they're looking at the fat women in their own lives, ideally then accepting them as having aesthetic appeal which, for better or worse, often translates into more complete forms of acceptance. I think it would be hard to disagree with the idea that physical acceptance is indeed the first step for so many people, and the approach is refreshing. By offering a "visual display of fat physicality" rather than "listing the merits of big people, or detailing examples of excellence" (things which are "easily seen all around us"), Jones forces us to acknowledge that accomplishments shouldn't be recognized as an exception, somehow out of character with or in spite of weight. Regardless of profession, achievement or personality, fat women have bodies, and their bodies deserve appreciation. I, for one, am happy to oblige.
I have come across a variety of responses to Adipositivity, from fellow photographer Laurie Toby Edison, who chose to include faces in her photographic series Women En Large, to a very personal interpretation from Super Babymama. Jones is encouraging people to spread the word, so here I am. Check out all of the pictures in the Adipositivity Gallery and post your thoughts (and your favorites) in the comments, then pass the link along to the folks you know — thin, fat and everywhere in between — who would love a reminder of what beauty is all about. Submitted by on September 17, 2007 - 10:49am. |
Recent blog posts
Active TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
Facebook
Twitter
Image Body Thereof
happy medium
It is not an obvious leap from the idea that America Ferrara is attractive and normal-sized to say that we should be completely accepting and view as attractive these obese women.
Constantly on this site I see people bemoaning the overly skinny and anorexic models, actresses, etc that we are bombarded with. I agree, we should not be condoning this. But the women pictured above have as abnormal a body as Nicole Ritchie does. Both groups are putting their health at risk. Both should be seriously trying to change their situation. I'm not saying we should be mean to either group of people, but portraying them as completely normal and not requiring change is not helpful to them either.
And in fact, I think it obscures the "value normal bodies" idea. People are going to dismiss it entirely, whereas someone actually taking pictures of normal, healthy bodies might actually get somewhere.
Exactly...
www.bigfatfacts.com
I think the problem with this position is that for these women, these are their normal bodies. The majority of adult Americans are overweight, and science has no proven method of weightloss to offer them (studies show that the vast majority -- up to 98% -- of those who lose a large amount of weight on a programme of diet and exercise will gain it back within 5 years; I can link you to four separate studies if you're interested). The science linking obesity and bad health is often questionable; it's increasingly coming to light that exercise is the determining factor -- if you exercise regularly you will be healthier than someone who doesn't, whether you're 115lb or 315lb. But exercise does not necessarily bring weightloss, so it's hard for any of us to know anything about whether these bodies are "healthy' without asking the women themselves.
Many people will live and die with bodies that are 100, 200 or 300lb larger than average. The Adiposity project is saying that these women have the right to be valued as much as their thinner sisters, aesthetically as much as anything else.
What is Normal?
First globalgrrl... I really appreciate that you care enough about the "large" part of your community to post this. I'm going to have check out these web sites.
Second Bas... this is not directed at you personally, but you said a couple of things that I wanted to address.
The AVERAGE american woman weighs in at 140 and wears a size 14. As far as I'm concerned there is no "normal", there is just average. Granted the women shown in the photos are well above average, but as long as they're healthy, if they don't want to change, why should they?
Did you know that the vast majority of 'normal' women on TV, in movies or in print are a size 0-4? Do you know how many women starve themselves to try to look like these women? Do you know how many women, young and old, are unhappy because they can't look that way? The unfortunate thing is that some of these women may be genetically unable to get that small and they are going to be unhappy for the rest of their lives.
I'm an above average woman and I know that no matter how hard I try I'm never going to be a size 10 and I'm OK with that. It means I can live my life free of worrying about what I eat and if it's more than a couple of tablespoons. I know I won't be attractive to a lot of people, but there are some to who I am attractive and I've had a very rich life. Just call me BBB, Big Beautiful Brenda.
Thanks for letting me rant!!
Peace, Joy and Love
Granted the women shown in
Granted the women shown in the photos are well above average, but as long as they're healthy, if they don't want to change, why should they?
No one is making them do anything they don't want to, but no amount of political correctness will change the fact that severe obesity is inherently not healthy.
You immediately rush back to the other extreme to talk about the unrealistic portrayals of the 0-4 crowd - that is a well documented problem, and no one is arguing with that. Nevertheless, obesity is a serious, serious problem in it's own right, one that's been worsening extremely rapidly lately. And no, no one in those pictures is a pleasantly curvy size 14.
To say that it's OK to be obese just so people don't feel that society is placing any kind of expectations on them is a somewhat odd position.
I changed my mind...
hmm...I'm going to have to
hmm...I'm going to have to agree with BAS on this one.
Normal is Individualistic
I really think that each individual has a custom normal weight. The whole body is comprised of so many individual parts. Some people have a short torso, some long...some people have long legs, some have shorter legs. Some people have wider hips, some more narrow. And of course, some women have large breasts, while others have smaller.
Some people can be "heavy" pound wise, and not look it simply because their weight is distributed in different places.
And there are people who are just naturally skinny...'cause that's their body type.
In my eyes, beauty is proportional. It's not something I can really put my finger on, and I guess it's sort of intuitive...taking in the sum of the parts as a whole...when a woman is the size they're supposed to be. When a woman is her normal, it's beautiful.
Individualism only goes so far.
Morbid obesity is never an individual's healthy weight. And many of these women are indeed morbidly obese, with a BMI>40. The comorbidities involved are severe and debilitating, not only killing them outright but also potentially taking away their limbs or eyesight.
It's not a good idea to romanticize any universally unhealthy weight- be it anorexically thin or morbidly obese.
Yeah, well...
I didn't say anything about the women in the pictures. I get the photographer's point in not showing faces, but I need more than static pictures of only bodies. I'm not a doctor either, so I'm not gonna diagnose anyone based on a picture. I don't know what their heart rate is, or the cholesterol level...or blood sugar level.
But I do know people who probably would be considered obese, yet have no diseases or health problems. It's probably an exception and not a rule.
I've been a fan of Ann Wilson since I was very little...and I've heard people say more crap about her weight than I really care to. And it sucks 'cause I've seen her perform live on several occasions and I never saw her out of breath despite the fact that she sings her lungs out and rocks out on stage for 2 hours.
I first saw Heart in the early 90s when she was probably at her heaviest, and she came out for FOUR frickin' encores. Another time I saw Heart, the Lovemongers opened (Ann and Nancy's other band), so she sang in the opening act as well as the headline act and was still belting it out during the encore.
I'm just sayin' as an example... how universal is it, really?
Hmm
I see the validity of what everyone is saying. But as globalgrrl mentioned, Adipositivity is depicting woman without the health comments. While we can all respect that it unhealthy for most to be severely thin or severely obese, we are constantly bombarded with idealized images of overly thin women. And, whether or not that is right or wrong it is a fact that isn't going to change.
With regards to the whole health aspect of it, the only problem I would have with any kind of fashion/beauty/glamour photo would be if it advocated unsafe health issues. And, while these pictures find the beauty in larger bodies, it does not seem to be sending a message that says that this is an ideal, or something to strive for. And, while you could argue that fashion mags don't specifically advocate severe, unhealthy thiness (for the most part), our society is holding up thiness as an ideal. Our society is nnot holding up much larger women as an ideal, and fnor that reason you cannot jump to the assumption that these pictures are glorifying unsafe health just because they find the beauty in large bodies. How many photographers find beauty in all sorts of usually considered "ugly," or "unhealthy" images (haunted looks, war torn countries, garbage, unideal living conditions etc) without holding up those images as an ideal?
It is interesting to me that a lot of people on this forum are appalled at massively photoshopped women, and the loss of real curves in mag images, and yet have no problem jumping to seeing a negative view of Adipositivity.
I think that Adipositivity is celebrating the beauty of larger women. And, I think that it is a good thing. It is easy to claim that larger people could easily remedy their situation, but usually there is a variety of factors that contribute to their size. It is easy for those who don't have to live with such enmity to make blanket statments about it. Being a larger women isn't something you can hide when you go out; it follows a larger woman everywhere she goes.
Larger women don't get celebrated very often. It is a lovely thing to see it.
I say let's see more of the real America Ferrera.
while these pictures find the beauty in larger bodies, it does not seem to be sending a message that says that this is an ideal, or something to strive for.
I agree with you on this one. Nobody is saying outright that we should all strive to look like the models in these photographs. Be they stick thin or wildly obese. Unfortunately, by glamorising stick thin women, what most magazines advocate is that being thin is sexy. And there seems to be a backlash against this, of which the Adipositivity Project is a perfect example. Being obese is sexy. Beth Ditto's NME cover is another perfect example. There's nothing wrong with being overweight. it's every bit as sexy as being stick thin.
Unfortunately, there is something wrong with it. Obesity and anorexia both lead to a decreased immune system, cardiovascular diseases, menstrual disorders and infertility, gastrointestinal diseases, osteoarthritis/osteoporosis. They both increase the risk of bowel, breast and reproductive cancers. So neither of these things should be glamorised.
Photoshopping out someone's curves to transform her into one of those anorexic, unhealthy, models is wrong. Glamorising obese, unhealthy, women is also wrong. Yes, it is important that people look at overweight women and see that they are every bit as aesthetically valid as stick thin ones. But, unfortunately, they are also every bit as unhealthy.
For me, the problem here is that nobody is photographing average sized, healthy women and putting them on the cover of a magazine. I say let's see more of the real America Ferrera.
Exactly
I would really like to see more average women glamourized. To me, that's the most sexy out there.
As for the "everyone has their own ideal weight and it's hard to be something else" idea, to an extent that is true. But as I've heard it, it's more like a range, of 40-50 lbs. With not a lot of effort you can be at the bottom or the top of that range, and your health might very well differ.
And also, it is just wrong that most obese people are genetically set to be obese. 30 years ago, heck even like 10 years ago, far less people were obese. The genetic pool has not changed. Most of those obese people must have had parents who at their age were not obese. Also, the way obesity tracks with socioeconomic status pokes a huge hole in that argument. There's no reason to think that different socioeconomic groups have different gene pools. Most americans eat crap, and are sedentary. It's a simple fact.
Lesbians as a group tend to be more overweight than straight women. In addition to poking more holes in the genetic predisposition argument, it just saddens me that we are going to be more unhealthy. It's great that we feel good about ourselves and don't starve ourselves for men. But let's not go overboard in the other direction either.
Health as a Religion?
"We're just saying this because we're concerned about your health and wellbeing. Have you found the Lord Jesus Scale? Do you know your BMI? We will count your Calories for you."
No thanks. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go drink a non-light beer, eat a cheeseburger made out of cheese and meat, smoke a cigarette, watch some TV and enjoy my life.
There's a middle ground.
You don't have to micromanage what you eat, or care at all about your weight to be healthy. Most of it is common sense- getting active every day, limiting yourself to a cheeseburger once in a while rather than everyday, and eating generally healthy foods most of the time.
BMI is an epidemiologic scale, not necessarily an individual one, and weight isn't typically an ideal way to measure health. Risk level for cardiovascular disease is better predicted by waist circumference- over 35 inches is typically high risk. That said, being in an obese or morbidly obese category according to BMI is strongly associated with a lot of negative health outcomes, like cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Individual studies' methodological problems aside, there is a large preponderence of evidence that carrying significant amounts of extra fat will screw up your body.
Many diet programs fail because people try to do everything at once, or make it way too complicated. When they fall off the wagon they never go back because it was a 'diet', a quantized period of time rather than a permanent change of habits. If Prader-Willi sufferers can maintain reasonable weights with structured eating, then just about anyone can.
As to the BMIs imperfections, many of the aberrant excercising obese are bodybuilders and football players, with huge quantities of muscle mass rather than fat. They don't typically see the same disease issues, but most people with an obese BMI are not Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronnie Coleman or Jay Butler, and don't have that excuse.
And why other people should care? Well, insurance is collectivized risk, so obesity-related disease will push up health-care costs for all of us.
Come on Out!!!
When is America Ferrera having her 'puppy episode'? Or she another behind the glass closet?