I happened across this nugget last week somewhere but, when I went to the newsroom to pick up my snail mail, once again my copy of Glamour had done AWOL.
Figures. It's a popular magazine. No wonder it has been my favourite lady mag since I was 12, although I confess to straying a few times.
Anyway, I haven't been to a newsstand to actually buy another copy. Then just forgot.
Today my friend Cate Kustanczy tweeted me a reminder.
Look Ma! No six-pack! No stick legs!
It's a photo that measures all of three by three inches in our September issue, but the letters about it started to flood my inbox literally the day Glamour hit newsstands. (As editor-in-chief, I pay attention to this stuff!) "I am gasping with delight...I love the woman on p 194!" said one...then another, and another, andanotherandanotherandanother. So...who is she? And what on earth is so special about her?
Here's the deal: The picture wasn't of a celebrity. It wasn't of a supermodel. It was of a woman sitting in her underwear with a smile on her face and a belly that looks...wait for it...normal.
Why she looks like the women I saw this afternoon in the gym -- and one of them was doing hand-stand push-ups.
As Leive says, we've gotten to the point where showing a woman with folds in her skin or a belly that sticks out (who isn't in a "before and after" feature) is a radical move for a women's magazine, even though that's what every woman actually sees in the mirror every day.
Glamour has a better track record than other women's magazines when it comes to showing women of all shapes and sizes. As mentioned earlier, we liked that the magazine's May issue used a plus-size model in their swimsuit fashion spread but didn't mention her size or pat themselves on the back for featuring a "normal-sized" woman.
But still, being the ladymag with the most body diversity isn't that hard when your competition is Vogue.
One or two occasional soft-bodied models do not diversity make.Incidentally, this fashion show in Australia is some kind of awesome!