We’ve heard in recent months about retailers adding models of sizes other than zero to their advertising lineups. This is a pretty neat idea, but I still have some questions. Will they also include women:
- Whose calves are "too big", thanks to natural muscle you’d have to surgically remove to alter?
- Whose legs are "too short", according to some random fantasy standard?
- Who don’t have "white features", regardless of their skin color?
- Who don’t look young enough to get carded at a bar?
- Whose noses have bumps, or aren’t small, narrow and upturned?
- Who aren’t at a minimum 3 inches above average height for women?
I’m sure you guys can come up with more "standards" for female models.
Because if they don’t include these women, we’re just going to have the same body type in several sizes. If the women don’t stand next to each other, we won’t even be able to tell the difference.
Subscribe and get every Hathor post in your RSS Feed , e-mail updates, Facebook or Twitter! You can also read every comment with our Comment Feed.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey,
I saw an ad yesterday or the day before for a search engine that showed a women who was not rail thin. And it wasn’t a thing. It wasn’t even about clothing or models or skin care…she was singing that she had ‘found’ whatever it was that she was looking for and it was staged like a big musical Vegas or Broadway show, and she was dancing.
I kept staring and couldn’t believe my eyes. It’s becoming somewhat normal for Dove or someone to try to appeal to different sizes of women, but I thought it was extra cool that it wasn’t mentioned in the ad or even for a body-related product.
Sorry, I can’t access YouTube to see if I could find the ad here at work – it’s blocked for some reason and I haven’t gotten internet turned on at home. Has anyone else seen this ad?
Firebird(Quote) (Reply)
In parallel to the calves, there are those bicep things that occur in the upper arm; for some reason, women are supposed to look like they don’t have them.
Also, tiny tiny chins.
SunlessNick(Quote) (Reply)
I’d love to see more models with a 29 inch inseam like mine.
And I’m really not even “short.”
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
My sister has been told she’s ‘too short’ to model. She’s about 5’6″, size 0 jeans and wears a 36 C (and yes, a part of me hates her). She’s definitely the Barbie doll physique, except not quite stretched out enough. Kind of makes a girl give up on beauty, you know?
(Although, the last time I went to her My Space she had photos up branded by a two different stores and a jean company…)
Firebird(Quote) (Reply)
As much as a disagree with the new ‘size zero’ concept that now apparantly defines models and women alike, I am a size 6 (UK) which would be a size 2 I think in US terms and find it incredibly hard at least in england to find any clothes that actually fit me. I believe there is such a growing demand for bigger sizes due to the terrain against size zero models that it is actually considered a taboo to be small. I am this way naturally and if people campaign to cater for larger sizes surely they should do so for smaller ones? I don’t know if its different in the states and possibly very much the opposite? let me know …
Butterfly(Quote) (Reply)
Butterfly, over here it depends where you shop. Express and The Limited seem to carry plenty of 0-4 sizes, and it’s hard to find 10-12, which is not remotely a “large” size range. On the other hand, there are probably more shops that focus on 6-12, leaving out folks on either end of the spectrum and only catering to the middle.
Note that these retailers are “adding models of sizes other than zero to their advertising lineups”, not getting rid of smaller models. That was something I looked into before writing congrats to them – variety and realism is what I want more of.
I would also hope that for the smaller sizes they’ll use models who, like you, are naturally that small instead of naturally-larger women who have starved themselves down to that size.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)