Real Women

I just watched a report about bigger women and smaller supermodels on ABC News that completely missed the point.  Body weight is a disparity issue of the moment, like the growing gulf between the wealthy and the poor.

The correspondent interviewed gorgeous former model Beverly Johnson who used to be size 6, and was informed that today, a size 6 would be a “plus size” model.  What ABC failed to report is that dress sizes are growing right alongside the expanding American woman.  There was no mention of height and weight, but if there had been, it would be apparent that supermodels weigh what they’ve always weighed, while typical American women are bigger than ever.

When I was in graduate school 31 years ago, I saved like heck and bought a pair of khaki Pierre Cardin bermuda shorts that I loved nearly to shreds.  It was the beginning of the return to classic fashion and I felt like a million bucks. At the time,  I was 5′ 8″ tall and I weighed about 123 pounds.  My bermuda shorts were a size 10.

Today at 54 years of age, I am 5′  7″  and 133.  Ten pounds heavier than 30 years ago,  I now wear a size 6.

I kept those bermuda shorts as a barometer of my weight gain through the years.  I cannot even close the the waistline now.  They fit like a size 2.

Growing up in the 1960s my mother and her friends used to speak of a “size 10″ as the benchmark into which every woman should fit.  I suppose in the 1960s, a size 10 was equivalent to a size 0 today, and who would envy someone in a 0?  Wouldn’t we all pass judgement and say she is anorexic?  She needs some food?  She’s unhealthy and has an unrealistic body image?

The ABC report was correct in stating the disparity between super models and typical women is growing, but it was wrong to say women are getting bigger while models are “getting smaller”.  Super models have always been thin, but the American woman is growing gigantic, and against the typical woman today, supermodels look like freaks.  We’ve lost sight of what a healthy woman looks like.

One of the first supermodels of the modern age is Twiggy, with a name reflecting the opinion of the day that boy, she sure was thin.  But compared to the typical woman of the day, she wasn’t that different.   I watch movies of the 1970s and can’t believe how thin and flat-chested are the women.  They looked completely normal when I watched during the ’70s.

For years my first mother-in-law proudly proclaimed that she was 99 pounds on her wedding day.  Many 1950s brides were.  Crossing the 100 pound threshold was met with alarm.  Sure, we’re about an inch taller on average than we were in the ’50s, but that hardly explains reaching 100 pounds by 3rd grade.

Of course, marathons, mountain-climbing and hockey leagues for women did not exist back then.  Women kept the weight down with soft muscles and cigarettes.  Bigger meal portions don’t explain everything about today’s 200 pound woman.

It’s easy to blame the fashion industry and super models for portraying an unrealistic ideal.  It’s much easier to look at our neighbors and say “now that’s normal!”  Typical, yes, normal, no.  A woman who is 5′ 5″ woman and weighs 190 pounds is at risk for diabetes, heart disease and stroke.

Rather than reject the models, we should reject the extra food.  Restaurant portions have grown to give customers the impression they’re getting a better “value”, but as humans are visual eaters, we clean our plate thinking “they wouldn’t give me this much if they didn’t think I could eat it!”

We’ve turned grocery shopping into an art form and if you doubt that, look at the rabid fan base of Wegman’s.   It’s a temple in an increasingly secularized world.  Just because it’s available and we can afford it, doesn’t mean we should buy it and eat it.  We pick up new ideas from the Food Channel.  And don’t even get me started on those gross eating contests on television.

There’s a supermodel, or two or five, within every one of us.

Tagged as: ABC news, Beverly Johnson, fashion industry, Healthy Eating, Plus size models, super models