In order to address the subject of body image in connection to the fashion business, I took over the Mindless Mag Instagram for a full day this week. I discussed how our perceptions of our bodies are frequently influenced by media ideals and the dearth of varied representation in fashion branding during the conversation.
I intend to go into more detail about some of these concerns in this essay and consider some strategies for starting to overcome our preconceptions about our own natural bodies.
Objectification and Conventional Beauty
We are all well aware by now of how desirable slender, attractive women are in the media. For example, as fashion industry models, TV and movie actors, or even as popular pop music singers. Even if it's arguable that being slender is no longer a need for employment, those who don't fit the ideal media image are frequently marginalized and treated differently than those who do.
I want you to think about how many times a larger woman's weight has been cited as a prominent attribute in the mainstream media to put this into context. Now think about how many people who actually fit the ideal body type have been reduced to that type of objectified identification already. The only notable distinction between the two categories of ladies is their dress size, even though it is far simpler to imagine those who answer the former question.
Because of their "non-standard" body type, larger women's talents are frequently overlooked. When a larger woman is heavily featured in the media, her size is attached to her value as a defining trait or even a defect. These ladies are therefore referred to by their outward characteristics rather than their names or abilities, being known as "that bigger dancer" or "that overweight singer."
This is dehumanizing in addition to objectifying. It is to ignore someone's intrinsic worth to refer to them only by their constituent elements, or outward traits. Therefore, to highlight a person's body image as their primary distinguishing characteristic is to portray that outside aspect of them as the most important aspect of themselves, whether or not their talent is emphasized.
In addition, we frequently hear comments like "it's great that she's so confident with her size" or "she's gorgeous, for a big girl." Even though these might initially look like compliments, their true purpose is to reinforce the notion that being slim equates to being attractive and that a person's body size is a significant aspect of their personality.
Every body is a good body.
We are frequently told that learning to "love your body" is crucial in the process of accepting our natural bodies. Furthermore, even though the sentiment is accurate, it is far easier said than done.
It is hard for those of us who don't fit this idealized representation of the feminine form to accept that our bodies are also beautiful in a world where tall, slender, "model-like" women are assumed to be the ideal body type.
Therefore, the process of accepting our bodies is one that will undoubtedly require a significant amount of time and self-care. It will be challenging to unlearn what we perceive to be true due to certain standards and values that are promoted by our media.
Everyone should be included.
In a same vein, one cannot gain acceptance by rejecting other people.
Telling someone that you "think bigger girls are prettier" or that you "prefer bigger girls" does not generate the approval you may believe it would. To "prefer" a so-called non-standard body type is simply to be non-standard in your acceptance and preference of larger women, according to the perception that this kind of "compliment" promotes. Because you are acknowledging that particular body type while simultaneously pointing out that it is not generally regarded as desirable.
Therefore, in reality, this "compliment" does nothing to alter how non-standard bodies are perceived outside of your own personal opinion; rather, it merely serves to further divide conventional and non-traditional beauty standards.
Must Know: How can women balance comfort and style while achieving a beautiful, sexy appearance?
Unusual Distancing in Fashion
We have been striving for more diversity in models and size availability for decades, and inclusiveness is a prominent topic in the fashion business. We still have a long way to go, even though the industry currently feels more inclusive than it did in previous years.
At first glance, a wide choice of sizes seems to be available while perusing trendy websites like ASOS or Pretty Little Thing. However, these sizes are not all found in one location. You are moved to the "plus-sized range" after passing a size 14. Being in the "plus-sized" category is obviously perfectly acceptable, so why is this category even necessary?
Having a different range for taller or shorter women is not the same as having a different range for larger women. Although the tall and tiny divisions eventually carry the same sizes, the varied apparel lengths need their separate. For instance, if I were to buy a pair of 26" waist jeans from the petite section, the leg length would be 28". For the same jeans, the tall section would offer a 32" leg, while the regular bracket would carry a 30" leg.
However, the fit and style of the plus-sized line are identical to those of the standard size range, but in larger sizes. Plus-sized sizes aren't carried in any other subsection, so why can't they just be added to the standard bracket, even though the styles are different from the tall and petite ranges?
Why should a business segregate the larger clothing into a separate section if they are willing to expand their size range to accommodate larger women? Furthermore, women in the UK typically wear dresses in a size 16. Given that a size 16 lady is classified as being in the average size range for women in the UK, it is illogical that she would be sent directly to the plus-size department.
The Achievement Badge for "Real Model"
We shouldn't be praising corporations for their efforts to promote diversity, even though it's vital to recognize their efforts. Diversity ought to be the standard in the fashion industry, and those who represent the companies ought to reflect the society we live in.
We should reevaluate our hurry to commend corporations for taking the absolute minimal steps to increase diverse representation, even as we start to doubt the rationale for the separation of plus-sized and regular-sized models. Shops like Boohoo are currently receiving plaudits for their clothes commercials that feature "real models" with curves and stretch marks. Although this is undoubtedly a step in the direction of a more inclusive industry, should it truly be hailed and considered revolutionary? To finally make use of models that are representative of ourselves and the people we observe?
I don't think this is very noteworthy, even though it's the kind of advancement that should be supported. For, well, it's just not that great. Using a single model that does not resemble the archetypal supermodel is more performative than anything else, and this kind of variety ought to be the standard.
It is insufficient for fashion brands to showcase twenty tall, slender, white, blonde models to represent their company, along with one "real" model, one black model, or one non-binary model. The inclusiveness movement will never advance past praising brands for their accommodating slice of minority representation.
What Comes Next?
We must question, "What next?" while we acknowledge the efforts major fashion firms are making to broaden their brands. Naturally, we must advocate for greater inclusive representation, particularly from sustainable businesses that, in spite of their promotion of environmental consciousness, tend to target the smaller size range. However, how can we suggest that they do this?
Using more "real models" that reflect the world outside of the exclusive modeling industry is the most obvious solution. To promote this kind of diversity, we may expect brands to do more than just performative actions. Additionally, we may advocate for the inclusion of standard and plus-sized apparel in companies who take pride in their ability to accommodate all body sizes.
Well-being and Health
Health issues and the potential negative effects of more body acceptance on our society are frequently brought up in discussions on body portrayal and image. Is mental health less significant than physical health, though?
Low body image perception is the root cause of many eating disorders, and it is also the source of linked mental health conditions including anxiety and sadness brought on by body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). When dealing with mental health conditions like these, which are closely linked to body image, we must first think about the possible causes of these difficulties of poor confidence, self-worth, and self-esteem.
Increased self-worth in society, especially with relation to the overall notion of body image, would surely result from efforts to enhance representation in the media. And we can start to address the root of the issue if we focus on promoting greater mental wellbeing rather than attacking people whose mental health is poor because they don't fit the mold of traditional beauty standards.
Wartian Herkku
No comments