I'm not...my body is not...PRODUCE, alright?
I've seen a lot of advice over the years (and it keeps getting re-hashed) about how to make your body look more like the "ideal" hourglass shape. The advice is all about hiding the shape of your body and "transforming" it. Abject bodies are often categorized like different fruits to represent weight distribution and proportions.
Objectifying women and reinforcing their commodification is the most obvious problem here, but even if you do want to look your best and enjoy fashion, a message of conformity is being strongly pushed. This alienates and produces a lot of anxiety over body image, when really a definition of attractiveness could be broadened to allow room for "interesting" instead of just "perfect."
I began to wonder what it would be like to live in a world where the fashion industry encouraged us to “emphasize” our differences from one another, instead of trying to make us all look the same. If you were "pear-shaped", for example, the advice would be all about highlighting that awesome booty and tiny waist and shoulders. Work that pear-shape!
So, for example, and I mention more/different points in the Fruit Punch zine:
- If you were broad-shouldered and thin-hipped, the advice could all be aimed at broadening your shoulders (shoulder pads and fancy necklines) and thinning your hips (dark colors and no pockets)! Work that triangle-shape!
- If you were apple-shaped, advice would be aimed at looking rounder with even skinner arms and legs. Work that apple-shape!
- If you were petite, advice could be aimed at looking smaller; if you were tall, advice could be aimed at looking larger.
- If you had short legs, advice would tell you how to elongate your torso; if you had long legs, advice would tell you how to shorten it.
Aimee Mullins has 12 pairs of legs, redefines "disabled", transcends normative conceptions of beauty. beauty
New Study Suggests Fashion Doesn't Need to Make Women Feel Bad About Themselves to Buy Shit
No comments:
Post a Comment