Glamour poll finds thin women stereotyped as mean, heavy women as lazy
Glamour magazine conducted an exclusive survey in which they asked more than 1,800 women, ages 18 to 40, to imagine an “overweight” woman and a “thin” woman. They were told to imagine that they know nothing about either of the women, and to choose from pairs of words to describe them (such as ambitious or lazy).
The findings, published in the June 2012 issue, weren’t very surprising to me. Heavier women were often regarded as lazy, slow, undisciplined, and giving, while thin women were perceived as conceited, bitchy, mean, and controlling.
Even the accompanying image depicts the thin woman as mean! She glares, straight-faced, at the heavier woman, while she subtly smiles at the camera.
Your attention may have been drawn to the fact that heavier women were labeled “giving.” What’s the problem with that? You might be wondering. Ann Kearney-Cooke, Ph.D, tells us, “It just fits into the stereotype that thin women are not that way.”
While weight stereotyping is nothing new, I don’t think I’ve seen many mainstream magazines talk about the ways in which women of all sizes are stereotyped and judged. I’m really glad that Glamour has reached out and contributed to this discussion about how heavy and thin women are affected by harmful stereotypes.
I do, however, have to point out something I found a bit problematic. The accompanying image with the article is typical, at best. It features a heavy woman and a thin woman, but of course they both have long, straight, blonde hair, they are both white, and have skin airbrushed to perfection. Just saying.
Glamour’s “overwhelming conclusion” of this poll states, “All women are now judged by their size.” I don’t think this is anything new, or a secret for that matter. During the last few months, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how thin-shaming is just as harmful as fat-shaming. The whole “real women have curves” mantra, for example, suggests that thin women aren’t “real.” What’s up with that? Continue reading
Cleavage-clad Jennifer Lawrence on Glamour cover is not what we’re “hunger”ing for
The cover of Glamour’s April issue features Jennifer Lawrence, the actress who portrays the Hunger Games‘ heroine Katniss Everdeen, in a bosom-bearing one piece outfit. In the book, Katniss is a symbol of strength, but this photo subdues that strength with a side dish of sexy.
Is it not enough to be a strong female, that we must sexualize Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen?
The upcoming movie adaptation of the first installment of the behemoth book trilogy, The Hunger Games, is set to open this week. While the Glamour piece is obviously showcasing the actress (not the character), the prop she’s holding (a bow) blurs the line.
The central plot of the novel involves a futuristic nation, Panem, where the government creates an annual, reality show-esque game involving two individuals under 18, randomly selected from each of the nation’s 12 districts, to complete in a fantastical death match where only one victor comes home alive.
I’m only on the second book, but I have yet to come across a description of an outfit resembling the one featured in this picture. Sure this feature is giving us Jennifer Lawrence and the article is about her, but, really, Glamour? We could see this in a men’s magazine, many of which notoriously disarm powerful women with some element of sexualization.
Dear Glamour, loving your body is never dangerous
Jess Weiner, not looking nearly concerned enough about her weight.
In a recent article in Glamour, body image activist Jess Weiner describes a health scare that made her re-evaluate her relationship with her body. At 250 pounds, with high cholesterol and low blood sugar, her doctor informed her she was pre-diabetic. Weiner made some lifestyle changes, dropped 25 pounds, and found herself with a clean bill of health. A positive, inspiring story. However, the problem is how this story is framed.
Weiner writes, “It didn’t matter in that moment, sitting half dressed in a paper gown, how many books I had written or speeches I had given about loving your body and accepting yourself as you are. The cold, hard truth was that accepting myself as I was was putting my life in danger.”
What puts someone’s life in danger is NOT their weight—it’s their lifestyle. Poor nutritional choices and lack of exercise are unhealthy, no matter what your weight is. And loving yourself doesn’t mean not taking care of your body. In order to lose weight, Weiner went to a nutritionist, learned to avoid foods with “unhealthy chemicals and extra sugars”, and joined a gym. Healthier food choices and regular exercise are your best options for improving health, whether or not you lose weight.
And yet Weiner attributes all her improved health to those 25 pounds. At the end of the article, she admits, “I’m still focused on losing more weight—30 more pounds is my goal — so I can stay out of the diabetes danger zone.” As J. Eric Oliver says in the book Fat Politics, “This is like saying ‘whiter teeth produced by elimination of smoking reduces the incidence of lung cancer.’” Healthy choices make you healthier. Weight loss is a side effect.
Imagine if Weiner had lost 25 pounds in an unhealthy way, by crash dieting or getting gastric bypass surgery. Would there have been such a positive change in health? Of course not. Everyone has that story of the skinny friend who can eat fries all day without gaining weight. Isn’t it time we STOP confusing weight with health?
What’s more, Weiner actually suggests that her self-acceptance was the source of her health problems. The very headline — “Did loving my body almost kill me?” — implies that hating yourself is actually healthier. In a country where up to 24 million people suffer from eating disorders and eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness, this idea isn’t just wrong—it’s dangerous.
Newsflash: Loving yourself will never kill you. Not taking care of yourself might. And hating yourself won’t help anything at all.
- Magdalena
Gallery of Winners: Glamour goes above and beyond.
Questions to Consider: 
* How do women’s magazines typically make you feel?
* In what ways does the article from Glamour differ from images in other magazines?
* What kind of products do women’s magazines try to sell you?
* What do you notice about the different messages of magazine articles and magazine advertising?
What We Think:
Praising a big-name women’s magazine may seem contradictory (isn’t this the direct source of all those airbrushed photos and deceptive advertisements?), but Glamour magazine has become a true exception. Consistently incorporating models of all colors, shapes and sizes, Glamour has stayed true to its promise of leading a Body Image Revolution. What’s most refreshing about Glamour’s commitment to diversity is that they don’t always have to pat themselves on the back for it. When editors included a nude photo of model Lizzie Miller flashing (gasp!) an un-flat abdomen, it wasn’t for a story about properly camouflaging 
imperfections; it was for an article on body confidence. And the magazine routinely incorporates plus-size models and models of color, without having to name them as such or relegate them to particular, “special” articles. Plus, the September issue’s “10 Things More Important Than Those Last Five Pounds” (at right) is, in itself, worth the magazine’s $3.99 price tag. (by Michelle Konstantinovsky)
Take Action! Contact:
Cynthia Leive, Editor-in-Chief
Glamour magazine
The Condé Nast Publications Inc.
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
(212) 286-2860