Dear Wendy
Dear Wendy

Topic of the Day: Amy Schumer is Pissed that Glamour Mag Features Her in Their Plus-Size Issue


Glamour magazine is publishing its first plus-size focused special issue, which is aimed at women size 12 and up and features a bunch of models and celebrities, like Melissa McCarthy, Adele, and Amy Schumer, who, for one, is pissed to be included in the issue. On Instagram, she writes:

“I think there’s nothing wrong with being plus size. Beautiful healthy women. Plus size is considered size 16 in America. I go between a size 6 and an 8. @glamourmag put me in their plus size only issue without asking or letting me know and it doesn’t feel right to me. Young girls seeing my body type thinking that is plus size? What are your thoughts? Mine are not cool glamour not glamourous.”

A representative at Glamour responded:

“First off, we love Amy, and our readers do too — which is why we featured her on the cover of Glamour last year. The cover line on this special edition — which is aimed at women size 12 and up — simply says ‘Women Who Inspire Us,’ since we believe her passionate and vocal message of body positivity IS inspiring, as is the message of the many other women, of all sizes, featured. The edition did not describe her as plus-size. We are sorry if we offended her in any way.”

Some people argue that there doesn’t need to be a special plus-size issue in the first place. Others agree that Amy, who isn’t plus-size, shouldn’t have been so prominently featured. And many, especially on Twitter, think Amy is being an ingrate. And, still others (like someone on my FB list), are commenting that “there’s no way Amy Schumer is a size 6,” which I’m not sure should be part of the conversation at all, except that the conversation IS about size, isn’t it? And it’s specifically about women “size 12 and up,” which invites speculation about a woman’s size, especially if she’s labeled by mainstream media as “plus-size.” Which brings us back to the first point: Is it more harmful than helpful to dedicate a special issue of a popular women’s magazine to plus sizes? And what about that term “plus size”? Whose benefit is it for if it ends up alienating people and making them defensive?

From Fortune.com:

Schumer now joins the many other models and celebrities who are calling for an end to the term, including Ashley Graham, who modeled for the cover, and Melissa McCarthy, who was included in the roundup with Schumer, among others.

“I’ve always hated the word ‘plus-size.’ It bugs me,” Meghan Trainor previously told Elle. “Everything Melissa [McCarthy] said is completely accurate. [They’re] a big part of our society, women who are size 14, and how are you going to criticize us? The word ‘plus-sized’ should be gone.”

“I don’t like the label ‘plus-size’ – I call it ‘fiercely real,’ Tyra Banks told HuffPost Style. “I don’t want to use the term ‘plus-size,’ because, to me, what the hell is that? It just doesn’t have a positive connotation to it. I tend to not use it.”

What are your thoughts?

119 comments… add one
  • anonymousse April 6, 2016, 12:20 pm

    I think it’s ridiculous that the term “plus size” even exists. What are plus sized men called?

    Reply Link
    • Lianne April 6, 2016, 12:23 pm


      Reply Link
    • jlyfsh April 6, 2016, 12:38 pm

      Or ‘Big and Tall’

      Reply Link
      • Kate April 6, 2016, 7:40 pm

        Or Short & Stout. My bro needs those type of specialty clothes but has to buy Big & Tall (more expensive than regular) AND get them altered.

        Anyway. I’m a longtime Glamour reader and I don’t approve of this special plus size issue thing. Just use models and celebs of all sizes in your regular issues. EVEN PETITE MODELS. Shorties should be represented too.

        And if Amy Shumer really is a size 6-8, I don’t blame her for being offended to be in their stupid “special plus size issue.” 8 is not plus. Why the hell cant they do a beauty or fashion feature on her or a TALENT feature without mentioning her size? Do they talk about Kate Hudson or Reese’s size when they feature them? Of course not. Shut up, Glamour.

      • Cassie April 7, 2016, 12:26 pm

        “EVEN PETITE MODELS. Shorties should be represented too.”


    • Addie Pray April 6, 2016, 1:00 pm

      Ha good point. I never thought about that.

      Reply Link
    • anonymousse April 6, 2016, 2:14 pm

      It’s just…women are ripped apart for being larger than what popular media tells us is acceptable and sexy, but men aren’t, really. Not to the same degree.

      Reply Link
  • Lianne April 6, 2016, 12:23 pm

    I am on Amy’s side here. She’s got such a strong voice with regard to women’s issues, body image being one of them. It is not surprising to me that she’s so upset over this. I think calling attention to a particular group of women due solely to their size is very dangerous. Would they do the same for women who are supermodel-skinny?? There’s got to be a better way to frame the discussion so that it just encourages women to embrace their bodies, no matter what size, and truly focus on making good choices to be healthy and help women – and men – maintain a positive body image.

    Reply Link
    • RedRoverRedRover April 6, 2016, 2:10 pm

      Yeah, it would have been better to have a “body image” issue, and have women (and men) who are all sizes, talking about body image issues. Having a whole separate one is kind of messed up in my opinion. It still keeps bigger women separate from the “default” skinny women that they typically use in their magazines.

      And then there would be no kerfuffle about who’s labelled what. Mix them all together! Who cares?!?

      Reply Link
      • ktfran April 6, 2016, 2:27 pm

        You said this better than I did.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 2:28 pm

        But, on the other hand, if the point is to provide a product that tackles a select group’s issues, where it is made for them to address interests and concerns unique to that group, then lumping it into an “everybody’s beautiful” product isn’t going to accomplish that. It is similar(in kind, not in scope or weight) to “All lives matter” as a response to “Black lives matter.” All lives DO matter, but that isn’t the point of the conversation. The issues that plague underweight people are real, but they are besides the point if the issue (both broadly, and physically, as in a magazine) is addressing Fat-Hate and body-shaming in the context of “plus-size” women, which is real and a pervasive wide-spread societal problem.

      • RedroverRedrover April 6, 2016, 2:39 pm

        No, I’m saying they should all be on the same level, but all talking about the same thing – the “plus-size” issue. Rather than only having “plus-size” women talking about it. Same reason we want men to be feminists. Feminism shouldn’t be a women-only thing, and anti-fat-shaming shouldn’t be a “plus-size”-only thing. Have a magazine dedicated to the issue, yes. Keep the people affected by the issue separate from the “default” people, no.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 3:19 pm

        Ah, ok. I thought you meant that the “topic” should be more diversified, rather than the people. Agreed on that.

  • Juliecatharine April 6, 2016, 12:24 pm

    Love this conversation and that we can (please God) have it here on DW without a bunch of trolls spouting hate. I don’t like the term plus size-it immediately identifies a woman as ‘other’.

    Reply Link
    • Vathena April 6, 2016, 12:38 pm

      Exactly. Why is there one “skinny woman” magazine and one “fat woman” magazine? Why can’t all the women be represented in the SAME magazine? I think that would be called “inclusive”. FFS. Because thin women can’t find Melissa McCarthy hilarious and inspiring? Because larger women aren’t interested in mainstream fashion tips? Thanks for the pity-mag, Glamour!

      Reply Link
  • Mylaray April 6, 2016, 12:35 pm

    By looking at Amy, I would have actually thought she is plus-size, since so often it seems plus-size models that are featured are much smaller than the range in sizes that are sold. But that’s besides the point. She has a right to be frustrated, and I think with all this body positivity that has been growing in recent years, an issue devoted to plus-size women is unnecessary and a bit unfair to be singled out for being “celebrated.” Because this “celebration” isn’t really celebrating acceptance. Why can’t every issue feature women of all sizes? Thinness sells, and body positivity issues simply become marketing campaigns when magazines don’t incorporate more diversity on the regular.

    Related, I came across this yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/women-pose-sports-illustrated-swimsuit-145117066.html
    Women of all shapes and races (and also a woman with a disability) modeling swimsuits like the Sports Illustrated issue. And they all look great.

    Reply Link
    • RedRoverRedRover April 6, 2016, 2:12 pm

      She’s probably plus-size *for a model*, but not what normal people would typically call plus-size. And I imagine that’s where the confusion came in.

      Reply Link
  • hazel April 6, 2016, 12:36 pm

    Agree with all above, especially Liane’s turning it around, haha, no ,they wouldn’t do the super skinny edition 😀 . Plus Amy rocks.

    Reply Link
  • SLS April 6, 2016, 12:37 pm

    I really wish that we could re-vamp the sizing scale in Women’s clothing because it doesn’t really matter. I mean I can swing between 3 sizes depending how something is cut or a particular brand (I will say it took me a while to learn that it was okay to try on a larger size for a better fit). Why can’t woman have standard measurement sizes like men’s sizing??? I think it take away any stigma because the numbers are just based on reality (ie. your waist or bust size).

    Reply Link
    • RedRoverRedRover April 6, 2016, 2:20 pm

      I think the reason ours aren’t done on measurements is because measurements end up being useless for women in the end anyway. Look at bras, they have measurements and still no one can find the right bra. They’re definitely missing at least one measurement – they’ve combined breast circumference and breast depth into one measurement, cup size, which is a lot less accurate.

      There would have to be soooo many measurements on clothes to be able to tell if it fits you without trying it on, that’s it’s basically impossible. I do a lot of knitting, and to fit a sweater perfectly to someone, you have to know:
      – arm length, length from wrist to elbow and from elbow to shoulder, circumference of forearm and of upper arm
      – shoulder width or distance between shoulder blades
      – distance from neckline to bust
      – bust size, distance from bust to waist, and ideally the exact horizontal location of the breasts to put darting in the right place
      – waist size, distance of waist from hips
      – hip size

      I’m sure I’m forgetting some. The major problem is that women’s clothes are so fitted. If they were looser like men’s clothes tend to be, half of those measurements wouldn’t matter.

      Reply Link
      • SLS April 6, 2016, 2:56 pm

        I get your point… but I still disagree. I think sizing can be altered to reflect true measurements.

        Men’s button-down shirt they have neck and arm length. They don’t take any other measurements into account. However, they do have styles (ie. slim fit, traditional, urban, I have seen all sorts of names). My husband is an awkward combo of neck/arm and when he lifts weights he can get a puffier chest for his slender build, so he orders most of his shirts online but he just finds his size, picks the fit, and then selects the styles. But watching him pick out shirts, even with his awkward sizing is still significantly easier than me guessing if I needed 2, 4, or 6 in a button down? Those #s really mean nothing and the sizing charts never correspond correctly!

        All the measurements you listed could be applied to men’s clothing as well. In fact all of those measurements were taken for my husband’s custom Tux. Neither women nor men need all those sizes for every day clothing. I just think having useless numbers that aren’t standardized, used in vanity sizing, and vary be company/designer promotes the stigma of women’s sizing. When it really shouldn’t be about the size at all, but about the fit. And to me “fit” is most reflected in using actual measurements to dictate the “size” of a piece of clothing.

      • RedroverRedrover April 6, 2016, 3:18 pm

        I’m high-waisted and I can tell you that the same measurements absolutely don’t apply to men’s clothing. To get women’s clothing right, it has to come in from the hips to the waist, then out from the waist to the bust. It really, really, REALLY matters what the distance is from your hips to waist and waist to bustline, and also what the relative measurements are. This is why nothing fits me. A fitted blouse is basically an impossibility for me. Any pants besides yoga/pajama/track pants are insanely uncomfortable. Suit jackets that fit right do not exist. Men don’t have this issue, it doesn’t really matter exactly where their waist is compared to their armpits or their hips, because the shirt is cut straight regardless. In a slim fit it might be cut into a “V”, but the lines of the V are straight. Same deal with pants, theirs don’t go out at the hips then back in at the waist. And don’t generally have to account for much of a bum either, and it doesn’t matter how high or low the butt sits.

    • Kate April 6, 2016, 7:44 pm

      They do. Designer sizes are pretty standard. They don’t use vanity sizing like mall stores. Which use vanity sizing because women like it. What’s a 0 at Express is a designer 4 or even 6.

      Reply Link
    • Sharon O. April 11, 2016, 10:00 pm

      Women wanted those numbers because they are smaller than what the numbers for the actual measurements are. Body image is not just about what the media says women should look like. A large portion of men find overweight women unattractive. Expecting everybody to think you’re beautiful is insane. It’s also unhealthy to be overweight. I hope your doctor doesn’t cuddle your psyche when he/she explains things like heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, etc.

      Reply Link
  • seriouslyasserious April 6, 2016, 12:44 pm

    (As someone who goes back and forth between a size 12-16 regularly, I feel qualified to speak not in hypotheticals (this is not to say that someone who isn’t similarly situated shouldn’t also, just that I am)).

    I don’t love the term “plus-sized”, but I like that there is a term at all, given the current production and sizing systems that the fashion industry uses now. Finding clothes that fit you and are made for you is awesome (I’m sure for anyone, not just us “curvy” (euphemism intended, not saying that girls who are not size 12 and up don’t have curves) girls), and it really helps cull down the vastness that is the internet (and some stores) to have a term to look for. While they are their own world, wedding dress shopping is the easiest way to realize the difference. There is actually a “plus-sized boutique” the next state over and I was so frustrated with sample sizes that didn’t even close to fit to get an idea what they looked like, that I drove out of stat to go there. [Incidentally, I am exactly the wrong size for a plus-sized wedding dress boutique, as those samples also were unable to get any idea what I looked like (right smack in the middle of the two sizing universes), but if I had been any larger, I would have truly loved going there, in a store with every dress available to me, without me being limited by my size, as I was at every “regular” boutique.]

    I guess, for me, it is similar to the people who are against products specifically geared towards Women, rather than People. I remember something about a pe company making pens geared at women and Ellen and others got really upset, like, oh no, my poor woman self, I need special pens! While I understood the point, I LOVE when things that seem “gender-neutral” but were really made with men in mind are re-thought from a woman-specific perspective. For example, I love suitcases that are made for and designed around women, specifically garment bags. I have looked everywhere, but a couple of companies that did start making bags specially for women were painted as patronizing and sexist.

    So, I see both sides, but I come down on the side of practicality for the maligned class of people — I like being able to click on the “plus sized” tab and see only things that will fit me. So I’m for it.

    Reply Link
    • Anon April 6, 2016, 1:12 pm

      To the point of clicking on the “plus sized” tab …they offer a way to search by specific sizes that would all you to click on your specific size and not needing an actual tab.

      Reply Link
      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 1:23 pm

        But, most of the time, the models wearing the clothes in the pictures are larger in the plus-sized section, which gives you much better indication of what it might look like on you. Even if all of the models were a size 8 and wearing size 8, they would be a slender size 8; clothing does look and fit differently on bodies that are above a size 10-12ish, and the sites that are looking to cater to plus size women often have women modeling the plus size clothing that are curvier and a little plumper, which helps picture how the clothes will look on you. So while I agree with you about searching by size only, the site would still need to organize it, at least internally, by two different categories.

    • anonymousse April 6, 2016, 2:23 pm

      Wait, you prefer the pinked up “made for women” pens?

      If that’s what you are saying…that’s interesting.

      Reply Link
      • RedroverRedrover April 6, 2016, 2:41 pm

        I think her point was that male is the default, meaning that everything gets designed for men without considering how well it would work for women. I mean, for decades crash test dummies were male-only, meaning that women were at much higher risk of death in car accidents. It only got changed recently, like in the last 5 years or so! That’s fucked up. So yes, it’s great when a company takes a product that was designed with men in mind, and redesigns it for women.

        The problem is that they then make it pink and stick “for women” on it. Maybe the pens are more comfortable for smaller hands. Fine. There are men with small hands too (like Donald Trump, lol). So call them “size small” and leave it at that. It doesn’t need to be gendered! Same with tools, same with earplugs, same with all this gendered crap. There are some great examples out there of companies doing this right. The new smaller iPhone 6, for example. It’s not a pink iPhone “for women”, it’s just a different form factor. Whoever finds it more convenient can feel free to use it. Another is high-end office chairs. The famous Aeron chair now comes in three sizes, and you can pick the one that fits your body type. The small one isn’t “for women”, it’s just small. Regardless of your gender you pick the right one for your body. I fully support taking this approach, and am fully against the pink “for her” idiocy.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 2:52 pm

        I mostly agree with you again, especially about making it pink with no differences. But I actually am ok, nay, supportive of advertising that chair for women. For one thing, it’d be way easier to find on Google, which is actually important. The other thing is that there are physiological (and some social based on physiological) differences that I’d rather they take into account. I haven’t looked into the office chair, but I’d love a chair that somehow took into account breast weight when it was supporting your back. Or the fact that most women have bras that hook in the back, so that it was designed to support your back but not have your bra clasp dig in. And I’d love for them to advertise those features! How else would you know about them? And how awesome of a company to take those little things that can matter so much into consideration! Which they can’t if they’re too scared of calling it a chair built for women. I agree with you, with the caveat that I’m ok with things being made for specific sets of people, including women.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 2:54 pm

        PS I wrote office chairs before you posted yours, and I kind of just made that up as something I wish they made while looking around my office. So that was nice to find out!

      • Portia April 6, 2016, 3:03 pm

        Yeah, I wish there were different options that weren’t gendered. One thing that has always made me mad was shoes. I have large, wide feet. When I was younger, the athletic shoes that fit me (without having to get specialized sizes) were men’s shoes. Thank goodness my mom just thought to go into a different aisle! These days I happen to know my shoe size in men’s and women’s (American, I know that other countries use the same general size), but most Americans don’t. I think most companies have moved towards different width shoes, but I was going against the grain to get the other gender’s shoes (and it was awkward if I showed up with the same ones as a guy).

      • RedroverRedrover April 6, 2016, 3:29 pm

        Yeah, I had a friend in highschool with this problem. She basically had to wear loafers all the time, there was no real other option for her. Her feet weren’t just wide though, they were pretty large overall. Like, a men’s size 12. She was really tall too, like 6’4″. It would be hard to be at that end of the extreme, because how many companies make women’s shoes for women that big? Maybe if she could find a company that catered to drag queens, although I have to think the styles would be somewhat “interesting”.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 2:42 pm

        No, I don’t prefer “made for women” bic pens, but I’m not offended by the concept, especially because I LOVE “made for women” other things. Like suitcases, or gym bags, or office chairs. Or shoe racks. Or, funnily enough, (now that I think about it) pens, but not crappy throwaway pens, real dip calligraphy pens where angle is everything and my hand size and relevant angles are different of that of whatever man most pens were designed around initially and all other pens have just been modeled after. My point is that I think it is a weird social climate for companies to make products for women right now, because they are both slammed for not taking their female customer base into account, and also slammed when they do. (This is why I stopped reading Jezebel, because they were so wildly inconsistent about when they’d pillory a company for being patronizing for attempting to cater to women one day, and laud a company for prioritizing women’s specific needs the next day, with no rubric for doing so, that I could tell. It would drive me crazy.)

        I think this got a little off-point, but the moral is: I want a carry-on rolling garment bag designed for women’s clothing, dammit!

      • RedRoverRedRover April 6, 2016, 3:01 pm

        I get what you’re saying, but for me the social cost of being “other” or “non-default” is not worth making shopping slightly easier. That’s a silver lining, but not a good enough reason to do it by itself.

      • anonymousse April 6, 2016, 5:57 pm

        Gotcha. See, I like designers designing for women…like specifically activewear has really been getting better and better from when it was a shitshow and obviously just a smaller version of men’s activewear and gear. I do absolutely despise pink everything=it’s for a woman. The bic pens were stupid like that, as I remember, they literally were just pink and pastel shades. Thankfully, more and more companies are designing for women, and not just pink shitty smaller versions of men’s stuff.

        Although, funny flip side- I was in a big chain grocery store and saw “dude wipes” or something. Marketed towards men adult butt wipes. ?

    • othy April 6, 2016, 2:24 pm

      I hate how frustrating it is to be solidly between two sizing universes (I’m also usually a 12-16). The thing that really confuses me is that the vast majority of US women are in the same range as me, but I always feel like I’m too big for the ‘regular’ market but I’m too small for the ‘plus-sized’ market. How is that even possible?

      Reply Link
  • Miel April 6, 2016, 12:46 pm

    I’m on Amy’s side too. I feel like magazines usually features model that are size 0-2. And then “plus-size” apparently starts at size 12 or 14. If Amy, as she says, is a size 6 or 8, she’s straight in between. She’s “in the no man’s land of size, where nobody should exist !”. This is ridiculous. I would be pissed too if I was told “you’re straight in between normal sizes and plus-size, so we decided to put you with the fat ones”. Wow! Thank you! I’m so glad I’m too big to be considered “normal”!

    I would be much happier if we just forgot about “sizes” and start featuring women of all silhouettes. I love Amy because she’s funny and she’s fierce. I don’t really care if she’s put in the same magazine issue as Adele (who’s also amazing) or Emma Watson or Gisele.

    Reply Link
  • ktfran April 6, 2016, 12:46 pm

    I took some time and read a few different articles and comments about this today. I wholeheartedly agree with Amy Schumer. She’s not plus size. She’s normal. Or average. Or whatever you want to call it. And I think the naysayers are missing the larger point… there shouldn’t be a special “plus size” edition at all. All body types should be featured in all issues. I don’t care for Glamour’s response either… I mean, they are truly calling out any woman who isn’t a size four or smaller… otherwise, the “women who inspire us” would have listed women OF ALL SIZES… just just women who are “big” by Hollywood standards.

    Also, Schumer could be a size six at JCrew, or other stores who vanity size. Fuck, I’m a size 00 at JCrew and I can’t even wear Loft. For what it’s worth, 8 years ago, I bought a size 4 shorts at JCrew, now, I truly need to buy 00…. and I’ve stayed approximately 118 lbs since high school. My point being, women’s sizing is not consistent.

    Reply Link
    • keyblade April 6, 2016, 12:54 pm

      Amen; you articulated this well.

      Reply Link
    • Addie Pray April 6, 2016, 12:57 pm

      I like to believe that no stores vanity size – because then holy hell I’m huge!

      Reply Link
      • RedroverRedrover April 6, 2016, 3:30 pm

        Oh it’s real. I remember at one point going down several sizes at my favourite store – when I’d actually gained weight. Ridiculous.

    • Addie Pray April 6, 2016, 12:58 pm

      But being a size 6 isn’t average or normal, it’s smaller than normal. Isn’t that why Amy is so pissed? Because these magazines would like girls to believe 0 is normal and Amy (at a size 6) is plus-sized.

      Reply Link
      • ktfran April 6, 2016, 1:03 pm

        You’re probably right. I just always thought size 8 was average….

        Regardless, this small, average, plus size is ridiculous no matter what way you look it, which was my larger point that I think people who are vocal about disagreeing with Schumer aren’t understanding. I love that Schumer called the magazine out, and I can’t stand Glamour’s response to her.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 1:16 pm

        “this small, average plus size is ridiculous no matter way you look at it”

        I agree with you in theory, but in practice, in stores, the divisions are kinda helpful for finding what fits you. Have a short torso? Petites are made just for you! But I’m totally on board with sizing based on actual measurements. But then again, Bras are, and finding a bra that fits correctly is like finding a handsome, very “giving” but ultimately emotionally aloof lover in your early twenties… you waste way a lot of time trying out ones that don’t fit right, and once you find one, you hold on to it way too long, even when it no longer can offer you the support you need. (bu dum ching). Actually, it turns out that “plus size” bras fit me better, even though it is the exact same number and letter size, but they are cut differently. So there is a benefit in labeling clothing differently based on who it was designed to fit. Its not like I am comfortable announcing it, but it does make it easier to shop.

      • ktfran April 6, 2016, 1:28 pm

        Oh, I meant in labeling women it’s ridiculous. I would consider most women “average.” There are some tiny women. And there are some extremely large women. Everyone in between I would consider average. That’s why I don’t like this “plus size” issue of Glamour. A lot of the women they’re featuring are average, they’re not grossly thin.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 1:30 pm

        Ah! You meant labeling people, not clothes. Got it.

      • ktfran April 6, 2016, 1:44 pm

        Yeah, in the context of extremely popular women’s magazines, I think it needs to change to be more accepting of everyone.

      • Kate April 6, 2016, 7:52 pm

        Size 14 was average as of a few years ago in America. And yes, vanity sizing keeps getting more ridiculous. AND they lie. I ordered some things from Loft based on the measurements listed, not just the “size,” and they were gigantic. At J Crew I go XS or XXS and I’m a healthy weight.

    • mylaray April 6, 2016, 1:03 pm

      Sizing is really whack (and men don’t have this problem, especially when most of their clothes come with multiple measurements). I’m a 000 at J. Crew (I cringe to write that) and a size 8 at H&M. It’s ridiculous. The whole idea that women should feel ashamed of their “number” past a certain size has contributed to this, and it really needs to change.

      Reply Link
      • jlyfsh April 6, 2016, 1:11 pm

        I hate the shaming that other people feel they get to do of others based on a number. I don’t assume I know anything about a person’s health or activity level based on how they look or what size they wear. Probably because I am a ‘plus-size’ and work out 6 days a week and eat a normal amount of food that is not unhealthy. People assume by looking at me that all I must eat is fast food and all I must do is watch television. Which sucks. Because, people and their health are much more than a size on a clothing label.

      • Addie Pray April 6, 2016, 1:17 pm

        Well said!

      • keyblade April 6, 2016, 1:18 pm

        I agree. I’ve been heavy and also thin and its amazing what people feel entitled to comment on about another person’s body. As long as they think what they are saying is flattering or helpful, some people think it’s perfectly acceptable to air their prejudices and judgments.

      • mylaray April 6, 2016, 1:24 pm

        Exactly, it’s really unfortunate for someone’s health and fitness to be judged by size.

      • MaterialsGirl April 6, 2016, 1:54 pm

        okay i’m commenting because of the sizes and yes, LOFT clothes I SHOULDN’T be able to wear a 2 (I’m freaking 6 feet tall for crying out loud), but JCREW has never really changed for me? I’ve always been a 4 or 6 there from 2003 onward. I do love that a lot of their tall pants are in numerical sizing though, that makes things a heck of a lot easier for me.

      • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 3:59 pm

        Has anyone been noticing this in shoes? I swear, my shoe size keeps getting smaller, and I can’t imagine my feet are shrinking (especially when no other part of me is). I went from usually a 9.5 to squarely between an 8.5-9 in the past 10 years or so.

      • MaterialsGirl April 6, 2016, 4:38 pm

        hmm I mean i’ve been a 10 to a 10.5 depending on the shoe brand since I was 12? I guess more 10’s are fitting lately, but that could also be because I will now only buy leather

    • girltuesday April 7, 2016, 10:49 am

      I’m with you – you and I are the same weight, but I’m a size 4 and sometimes 6.

      Reply Link
  • keyblade April 6, 2016, 12:48 pm

    I’m really hesitent to comment on such a touchy topic. But here is goes.
    I think the term “plus-size” was put out because so many different stores go up to 12 and then maybe XL, which is around a 14. Plus-size came about to describe a subset of sizes for a niche market. That market has become less niche as we all know. Those who don’t want to promote obesity sometimes object to fat-acceptance and don’t want to accept “plus-sizes” as a national norm without a protest. But I think a healthy size can be encouraged without making it about looks. Because many of us believe discriminating by appearance alone is diminishing to personhood I think it is important to keep calling out the media and advertisements when they do this. I applaud Amy for voicing her frustrations. It says something that someone with a healthy body is seen as a special unicorn to be lumped together with all the other outliers. Often I think overweight people already struggle with shame cycles and disassociation between their feelings and their actions (eating). I also have a belief that once someone is fully grown, transformative change begins with them and what they want, not with them trying to please other people.

    As for whether or not we should use the term plus-size, it does seem to be becoming obsolete. Clothes sizes differ from store to store enough that many people fall between two sizes and it really isn’t accurate to refer to a person as a size, just an article of clothing. Personally I’d love to see new descriptions across the board for regular clothes sizes. I think there is a big difference in shirts that are cut for big busted women versus flatter-chested women. I think the same thing about Butts and Guts. I wish clothes were also arranged by apple/pear/banana in addition to just a number of inches at the waist. But I don’t really know enough about sewing to know if there is any practical way to do this.

    Reply Link
    • Juliecatharine April 6, 2016, 1:07 pm

      Finally-a fun trip to the Apple Store! ?

      Reply Link
    • keyblade April 6, 2016, 1:27 pm

      “But I think a healthy size can be encouraged without making it about looks.” I’m amending this statement to say a *healthy body* because healthiness is not one universal size or shape.

      Reply Link
    • blink14 April 6, 2016, 1:46 pm

      I so agree, I wish there was a better way of organizing clothes by body type. However, it probably wouldn’t be as simple as making measurement adjustments. Certain styles just don’t look good on certain body types. Someone with a large chest wearing a high necked, baby doll top is going to look pregnant, whereas a top with a lower cut neckline is more flattering and vice versa. You’d actually have to create, in my opinion, different lines for different body types. It could all be based off of an original line of clothing, but it would require multiple patterns for every piece, which probably isn’t very cost effective.

      Reply Link
      • dinoceros April 6, 2016, 3:39 pm

        That sort of brings up other issues though. What our society considers flattering often is related to the idea that people should downplay parts of their body that look big. And for an item to not be flattering to a full-bodied person generally is something that makes them look bigger or fails to make them look smaller. That’s concerning to me because it reinforces the idea that bigger is worse and that if you are, then in order to look good, you need to try to look smaller or hide the “bad” parts. I think that different bodies are flattered by different styles, but in our society, smaller frames are much less frequently critiqued in terms of what styles look good or not. I think women who do want to wear styles that “flatter” their body should have them, but women who want a style that society says only looks good on smaller people should be able to get those too.

      • keyblade April 6, 2016, 3:59 pm

        I’m not so concerned about a line deciding what is flattering versus just getting clothes that fit my shape. I have trouble finding pants regardless of how high or low the size of the pants because I have narrow hip bones and a flat butt. Petite shirts sometimes work well for my relatively small bust except that I have wide shoulders and long arms. I think sizes narrow down a fit, but I wish there was a way for people to search for clothes searches by shape. If someone wanted to accentuate curves rather than hide them, I would think a similarly shaped shirt could work in more than one size.

      • keyblade April 6, 2016, 4:00 pm

        I’m sorry for the very bad grammar.

      • ktfran April 6, 2016, 4:06 pm

        Ugh. I have such a hard time finding pants because of my butt. They end up sagging almost immediately. I heard Theory is supposed to fit slim, non-curvy people well, but I don’t want to spend the $.

        And don’t even get me started on button down shirts for people with size A breasts, or strapless bras…. I basically don’t have enough boob flesh to fill out a strapless bra. So, I have to stick something on. Which, by the way, fell off once when it was super hot out and I was sweating.

      • call-me-hobo April 6, 2016, 5:27 pm

        If it makes you feel better, button down shirts and strapless bras are a real pain for people with big boobs, too. I can’t get a button down shirt where the top two buttons will close without gapping!

      • Ktfran April 6, 2016, 6:39 pm

        I’ve heard that actually. Being a woman is hard sometimes.

      • RedRoverRedRover April 6, 2016, 6:47 pm

        And if it makes you feel even more better, I get saggy butt even with my big bum. Because when I sit, my bum takes up more space and pulls the pants down, then when I stand, it’s sag city. Also when I walk, my thighs pull the pants down and so I get saggy butt then too. I don’t even have big thighs, I think it’s because of the stress caused by the big butt taking so much of the fabric. Basically it’s a constant fight between my pants wanting to head south and me trying to keep them pulled up.

        I hear ya on the shirts though. Nothing worse than a tailored shirt with breast darts, where the darts cause the shirt to basically go concave over your boobs because there isn’t enough to fill it out.

      • anonymousse April 6, 2016, 7:37 pm

        I can’t find pants that fit my wider hips, and my flatass.
        They sag, a size smaller doesn’t work, a belt does, but not comfortably….sigh.

      • anonymousse April 6, 2016, 7:38 pm

        I used to have a plump bikers butt. One day…

      • blink14 April 7, 2016, 10:34 am

        That’s kind of my point though – getting the same design of a pair of pants to fit similarly on a variety of body types is more than just adjusting measurements, you would actually have to adjust the design by body type. A pair of wide leg suit pants fit completely differently on someone who is 5’6 and a size 8 with a narrow waist/hip area in comparison to someone the same height and size with wider hips. Body type changes the way the clothes lay and fit, and therefore changes how that item looks and fits on a person to person basis. At some point, you no longer adjust the measurements and still retain the original design.

  • saneinca April 6, 2016, 1:42 pm

    I doubt Amy is 6-8. She is most likely 14-16 from pictures. But it does not really matter. Good looking women can come in all sizes (and vice versa).

    Amy however does not have a right to be offended when she herself calls out various people for their sizes. Remember the shade for Khloe on losing weight ? About TS’s thigh gap ? She is supposed to be a comedian who does not mind insulting other people. She just needs to take this also in her stride.

    Reply Link
    • Seriously? Seriously! April 6, 2016, 2:00 pm

      She isn’t offended that they called her fat. She’s upset that they called her “plus-size” when she isn’t, and that young girls will internalize that being “Amy Schumer-sized” is “plus size” when it very much isn’t. And as someone is size 14-16 right now (and 5’7″) she is way smaller than that. The camera really does make people look bigger than they are.

      Reply Link
      • Rangerchic April 6, 2016, 2:23 pm

        Agree…I’m usually a 14 and she is smaller than me too. I workout 5-6 days a week, eat pretty healthy. The smallest I’ve ever been is a size 8 (25 years ago) but since having kids (with my already wide hips) made them wider and there is no way I will ever be a size 8 again unless I have my hips shaved or something (I’m 5’7). I’m in good shape but “obese” by hollywood standards. I think I’m pretty normal…and I’m happy where I am but I really hate all the labeling. Just because someone looks bigger than “normal” (what is normal anyway??) doesn’t mean they aren’t healthy and someone who is a size 0 can have a ton of health issues. You just can’t see them.
        I once worked with a girl (she was around 24 at the time) who ate fast food for all three meals…she did this for a couple of years. One day she didn’t feel well. Turns out she was on the verge of very serious heart issues (super high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc) and she was rail thin. Looks don’t tell all.

      • Jessibel5 April 7, 2016, 7:52 am

        I have a friend who was in the same boat as your coworker. She referred to herself as “skinny fat” jokingly because she was like “I’m hot and skinny, but I’m extremely out of shape” and did not eat well at all, nor did she exercise. When she got pregnant and then had her baby, that’s when it all “caught up” with her. She gained 80 pounds during her pregnancy very quickly and easily because she continued with her fast food/pizza at 2 am/eat a bag of chips in one sitting habits. Her doctors were all like “no, this is not good…” Afterwards she was like “well, I did this to myself, and now I gotta fix it. I never thought it would get like this, my mistake” She’s been cooking at home more with veggies and exercising with the baby, and now talks about how she can’t live like she did in her 20’s anymore and can’t rely on her metabolism or her youth to keep her skinny anymore. She was a heavy drinker before the pregnancy and I don’t think she’s had a drop since, or if she is drinking it’s more in moderation.

    • Just Max April 6, 2016, 2:29 pm

      I’m curious as to what “most likely 14-16 from pictures” means. Really. How do you determine this from a picture? (“you” general you, not you in particular, saneinca).
      When I see Amy in the context of this discussion, I see a normal size person which, in my head, is proportioned to height and actual body shape. And body shape to me is not weight related, but actual body shape as in hourglass, triangle, inverted triangle, etc. (who came up with this, anyway?).
      One of my sisters is “rectangular” shaped. She’s complained about her weight for years because she thinks she is overweight, which I am almost positive she associates with not being more hourglass shaped (like most of the females in the family, myself included).
      Back to Amy – does she “look” like a certain size because of her body shape? Why isn’t likely for her to be a size 6-8, as she says? What’s so hard to believe there?

      Reply Link
      • saneinca April 6, 2016, 9:43 pm

        Max, here is a photo of the beautiful size 16 model Ashley Graham


        Tell me if Amy looks nearer her size or not.

        She will not be the first celebrity to lie about her age or size. But why does she have to pretend pseudo outrage at being called plus sized ? She refers to herself as fat all the time.

        I read the other mails though. So may be she gets her clothes from Jcrew or other companies that provide vanity sizes. So may be she believes herself to be smaller.

      • anonymousse April 6, 2016, 9:49 pm

        No, I don’t think she does look the same size, or close. Amy is smaller, no doubt.
        I don’t really care about this, but why are we questioning what size she says she is? I’m 6-8 depending on the brand and I think I look like Amy. I don’t look like Ashley.

      • saneinca April 6, 2016, 11:45 pm

        If she is plus sized and resents being called plus sized and lies about her size, that means she is only insulted at being called fat which she does to everyone and not because of some noble thoughts about little girls.

      • Jessibel5 April 7, 2016, 7:09 am

        My thoughts on this were more in line with yours. I think the fact that she even brought up her own size at all makes her look defensive, regardless of whether or not she’s lying about her size. She starts off her statement saying that there’s nothing wrong with plus size, but then it goes into a type of “but I’m NOT thankyouverymuch” The first thing I thought reading it was “ok, so plus size is fine, as long as YOU’RE not called plus sized? Got it.” The way it was worded just left a bad taste in my mouth and made me cringe a little bit.

        If she’s lying about her size, it makes it even worse. It’s perpetuating everything that’s wrong with the situation. If she feels that she needs to lie about her size even as she’s defending everyone else, it just proves that this societal expectation goes so deep and is so pervasive. I’m not sure whether or not she’s lying about what size she is (I’m 50/50 on that), but I think if she left her size out of the statement, it would have backed up the point she was trying to make much better.
        I’ve never really followed her or know much of her standup, but does she joke about people being fat? If yes, should she be doing that if she wants to be a voice for body positivity?

      • keyblade April 7, 2016, 7:13 am

        What is this, the Salem-dress-size trials? I don’t hear Amy Schumer fat-shaming groups of women. She’s a comedian. And a woman. I don’t think her talking about her own self-image in stand-up makes her a body a free-for-all for everyone. That argument is like saying because Chris Rock makes jokes about black people and white people it is acceptable to make racist statements about him.

      • SimontheGrey April 11, 2016, 10:28 pm

        I want to give you the equivalent of Reddit Gold for this.

      • RedRoverRedRover April 7, 2016, 8:03 am

        Amy’s smaller than Ashley. Body shape has a lot to do with it. I think Amy is one of those people who will always look “big”, no matter how much weight she loses. It’s the round face with small features, and the wide rounded shoulders, and the sturdy build. She can’t change those. My brother has the same problem, he used to be overweight but he’s gotten it off and kept it off for years. He still gives off the impression of “round” and “soft” though, even though his stomach’s fairly flat.

        Whereas for me, even when I gain weight, I give off the impression of “slim”. At 5’8″ 160lbs I still had people saying they wished they were slim like me. I have narrow shoulders and a slight frame. I have high cheekbones and visible collarbone. Those things make people think I’m thin even when I’m wearing a size 10-12 and have rolls on my stomach. It’s crazy how much your build makes a difference.

      • Jessibel5 April 7, 2016, 8:13 am

        Total sidebar here, and may be slightly creepy (for which I apologize if it is), but the more I read your posts (and how often I agree with your posts and nod my head and go “yes! yes!!! exactly!” when I read them) the more I crack up at similarities between us sometimes. I agree with basically everything you say here, we’re both about the same amount pregnant right now, and now with your physical description I’m like, huh…I could have written something very similar about myself…

      • RedRoverRedRover April 7, 2016, 8:29 am

        OMG maybe you’re my doppleganger!!! 🙂

      • keyblade April 7, 2016, 9:30 am

        I agree. I think Amy is being categorized as “plus-sized” by her shape rather than her size. Glamour should incorporate different shapes, heights, and sizes in fashion without creating niche magazines. If more people saw the natural diversity in body shapes, more people would realize you can’t tell much about the size a person wears based on what they look like on television.

    • Portia April 6, 2016, 2:34 pm

      I’m anywhere between a 6 and a 10, depending on the store, and about her height and I’d say I look about her size in this picture: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRbB4MnAaIfvpUlNEXCKuhQM196CR6TyV8sqhFYy7Tt7nbFbxDM

      Reply Link
      • Portia April 6, 2016, 2:44 pm

        Maybe more like this: http://static.gofugyourself.com/uploads/2015/04/amy-schumer-time-100-470574702-2.jpg

        I would kill for her legs, though (not shown in this picture).

      • Lianne April 6, 2016, 3:54 pm

        Hate to use the term, but this is not “plus size.” It’s what the average woman looks like – if not smaller.

      • Portia April 6, 2016, 4:27 pm

        Yeah, I can’t imagine someone would call that size “plus size.”

      • saneinca April 6, 2016, 8:38 pm

        Camera angles and/or photo shop. I saw her in the movies and live on TV.

    • Cleopatra Jones April 6, 2016, 3:55 pm

      I doubt Amy is 6-8. She is most likely 14-16 from pictures.

      Pictures can be oh so deceiving though. Amy has a softer frame so she may tend to look ‘bigger’ on TV & pictures. If she had a more muscular frame then you wouldn’t automatically assume she was lying about her size. 🙂

      Reply Link
      • saneinca April 6, 2016, 4:57 pm

        Hey guys, I am a size 8-10 depending on brand. And I look much slimmer than her (from my pictures). That is how I guessed. And a size 6 cousin of mine of her height (5’7) looks very slender.

        Also not based on her frame but from her other photos.

      • ambrosefierce April 6, 2016, 6:57 pm

        She looks a little ‘chubby’ in that pic maybe (though everyone has rolls when they’re seated). But if those extra few pounds are on a smaller frame a size 6 is not out of the picture. One size can look very different on a different body type.

  • dinoceros April 6, 2016, 2:10 pm

    I think there are better ways to describe clothes, but I definitely think that plus-size shouldn’t be used to describe a person. People aren’t sizes. They are people. I’d be interested to hear what the other actors think who are in it, particularly the ones who are what Amy would consider to actually fit into the plus-size category. I’m not criticizing Amy, but part of her argument is that girls who are similar size shouldn’t think they are plus-size, but I think that should be the same for girls who are bigger than Amy, too.

    Reply Link
    • keyblade April 6, 2016, 2:30 pm

      I agree. Real people often fluctuate and there are much better ways to describe female-entertainers (because nobody is writing articles about “plus-size” men) than by a range of numbers which isn’t consistent across stores, anyway.

      Reply Link
  • Addie Pray April 6, 2016, 2:37 pm

    But what think you, Wendy?

    Reply Link
    • Dear Wendy April 6, 2016, 9:40 pm

      Hi! Sorry, didn’t have childcare today and was away from the computer most of the afternoon and evening. BUT, I will say that I love Amy Schumer –I think she’s smart and funny and pretty, too. And, of course, she’s average size. But… I sort of don’t get the over-defensiveness about being labeled plus-size. To me, it’s kind of offensive to be so quick in proving that you’re not plus size and then using the argument that you’re doing it for the benefit of little girls who, heaven forbid, but think they, too, must be plus size if they look like a famous person who is being labeled plus size. There are certainly worst things to grow up thinking you are or thinking the world sees you as. The whole “I’m so not plus size; I’m a size 6!” kind of seems like a subtle anti-fat trope, and it grosses me out a little bit.

      Reply Link
      • keyblade April 6, 2016, 11:19 pm

        I can see your point; the argument about little girls was a bit weird (I think it could apply to plus-size little girls who don’t identify with Schumer but I have no idea why they would be reading glamour). Still, why is there even a debate about Schumer’s dress size? Maybe she’s worked really hard to be at a size six and she’s proud of herself. Or maybe she is overly sensitive and has some body-shame associated with being referred to as plus-size. But if she identifies her size and doesn’t want to be brought in to plus-size magazine discussion, I feel like those parameters should be respected. I know all women who have any degree of fame presumably expect their bodies to be picked over and labeled both positively and negatively, but I don’t blame her for reacting defensively to it. But I also don’t blame other people for being turned off by that defensiveness over being perceived as overweight. There’s no winning this judgment game.

      • Ktfran April 7, 2016, 7:43 am

        Honestly, I agree somewhat. I didn’t care for Schumer’s wording when calling out the magazine. I wish she would have taken Glamour to task more for putting out a special addition, plus size magazine (and throwing in only the not model type, ridic thin people) in the same magazine. She shouldn’t have made it about her size… But more of why call out regular to plus size people.

      • jlyfsh April 7, 2016, 8:05 am

        I was reading more about this last night and apparently Lane Bryant (a ‘plus size’ retailer) approached Glamour to put out the magazine and have formed a partnership (which will include another edition and a fashion line). Which I find interesting. It’s basically just a really large ad for a retailer.

        There was this comment in this particular article I found last night that I found most interesting, ‘While the ceo noted that definition of plus-size is a bit murky and “part of the challenge” — the fashion world puts plus-size at beginning at eight or 10 and above, while Lane Bryant starts it at size 12 or 14 — spending is at least $19 billion a year. Heasley offered the plus-size consumer’s spending power is closer to between $25 billion and $40 billion. That data caught the attention of Glamour, which signed on to work with the brand.’

        I think it goes back to what Kate was saying above about designer sizes. I wonder what a size 8/10 that a designer makes would be at say J Crew, Gap, or somewhere comparable. Because, looking at Amy Schumer I just can’t see her being able to wear anything Lane Bryant sells.

        I do wish they had taken the chance to do something different with this edition. Instead of focusing on one specific weight range do an edition on being healthy both mentally and physically, appreciating our bodies and featuring clothing for all sizes. It seems like both Lane Bryant and Glamour have sold this and approached it in the wrong way. And I agree that if Schumer had called out that issue instead of focusing on her specific size it would have been better received.

      • ktfran April 7, 2016, 8:15 am

        This. Roll out a health and positive body issue focusing on people of all sizes, with ads for people of all sizes and then start working that into every issue. Why does there need to be one issue dedicated to plus size? And then also sprinkle in some people who are considered big but not plus size by the fashion industry? You’re right, Kate did explain it well above.
        I think Amy’s message was slightly off, but I’m glad she got people talking about it.

      • Kate April 7, 2016, 3:55 pm

        The Lane Bryant thing explains a LOT. I was surprised that Glamour did this. Like I said, I’ve been reading them since the late 80s or so (maybe read my mom’s copy at first). And I subscribe on my iPad but just in the past few months have gotten too busy to read my magazines. I noticed that Glamour did regularly feature models that were not a size 2 in their normal issues. That seemed like a good thing to me. InStyle will have, like, ONE short column or page on larger-size fashion. I feel like Glamour was doing a better job than other mags, and also would have plenty of articles on how to eat healthier. I think they jumped the shark with this dedicated plus size issue, ESPECIALLY if it’s just a big ad. Fuck that.

        Some designers do make larger sizes, by the way, I was just reading it… somewhere… a list of designers whose sizes go up higher than typical. But my understanding is that designers follow standard waist, hip, and bust measurements in their size conventions. Like a 4 would be 26 inch waist, 33-inch bust, whatever hips, 35 or something. And that size is XS or 0 at a lot of mainstream fashion stores. If Amy is a DESIGNER 6-8, she could be like a 4 at LOFT.If she’s a LOFT 6-8 maybe she’s really a designer 12-14. BUT I THINK SHE LOOKS REALLY GOOD AND NOT FAT AT ALL.

      • RedRoverRedRover April 7, 2016, 7:57 am

        I think she may not have worded it the best, and if I were her I wouldn’t limit it to girls. There’s definitely an issue with calling a woman Amy’s size “plus-size”, which is that if that’s now plus-size, it means that the socially acceptable weight gets pushed even lower than it was. You’ve got to get a few sizes lower than Amy now to be “average”, if she’s counted as plus. That’s insane.

      • Jessibel5 April 7, 2016, 4:46 pm

        Yes! Exactly! That’s what made me cringe about the statement, Wendy’s last sentence here is key.

        I did say to a coworker when “Trainwreck” started getting awards and everyone was loving it “mark this day, I really hope this doesn’t happen, but a year from now…? I REALLY hope we don’t see the thinnification of Amy Schumer” I think she looks great. She really knows how to rock her body and knows how to dress it. But when women get famous in Hollywood, they so often go through a “thinnification” because of the pressure. The best example I can come up with off the top of my head is Rose Byrne. If you watch Troy, I think she looks hot! Compare her to how she looks now, and the difference is highly noticeable. She’s still gorgeous, but she didn’t NEED to get thinner. But…that’s the way the industry, and the world, works. Scarlett Johansson recently got noticeably thinner in the past few years, used to be lauded all over the place for her curves and her breasts. Now she’s shrunk noticeably. Could be that she’s just working out like a beast to be in shape for the Marvel movies, but the point there is that Marvel didn’t want her curvy, they wanted her thin. Meanwhile I know someone who is in film editing who says that Marvel de-emphasizes Elizabeth Olsen’s assets in post-production because they think her boobs are too big. This is the way the industry works. And it sucks.

        Although, to be fair, sometimes I think the culprit in thinnification is cocaine. You can usually tell when someone lost a lot of weight due to developing a coke habit. They suddenly have the money and access to it, and realize that it’s a shortcut to looking “good”. The weight comes off fast, and coke is as normal as breathing in Hollywood from what I’ve been told, and then they tell the magazines that “I didn’t do much of anything to lose the weight!”. I have a friend who lives in Nashville who told me it’s a horribly kept secret that there’s a certain famous country singer who lost her weight that way as well. She recently stopped using it and now she’s putting weight back on, and her managers aren’t pleased. It SUCKS that there is so much pressure for women to look a certain way that they would resort to that.

      • Jessibel5 April 7, 2016, 4:50 pm

        Correction above re: Elizabeth Olsen

        I was just corrected by my editing friend who said it’s DISNEY not Marvel that wanted her boobs smaller in post editing. Something about family friendliness.

      • RedRoverRedRover April 8, 2016, 7:43 am

        Disney did that to Lindsay Lohan in Herbie the Lovebug. So weird. It’s not family-friendly for women to have breasts?!?!

  • ktfran April 6, 2016, 3:59 pm

    Reply Link
  • memboard April 7, 2016, 9:58 am

    Reply Link
  • bittergaymark April 7, 2016, 4:01 pm

    I’d be pissed. Honestly? The whole plus sizes thing has only created a nation of fatties by normalizing obesity. Yay. Genius work, everybody. Enjoy your diabetes.

    Reply Link
    • RedRoverRedRover April 7, 2016, 4:20 pm

      It kinda normalized itself by so many people becoming overweight. I think the average woman in the US is overweight now, right? So it’s normalized, no matter what we call it. There’s no point in making overweight people feel even crappier than they already do, though.

      Reply Link
      • bittergaymark April 7, 2016, 4:58 pm

        Maybe if more and more people gave up the fantasy that being fat somehow sexy and empowering more and more people would actually — I dunno — GASP! — make a fucking effort to lose some weight?

      • saneinca April 8, 2016, 1:01 am

        Being thin does not mean healthy and being big does not mean unhealthy all the time. e.g. thin meth users and people like Olympic discus throwers.

      • RedRoverRedRover April 8, 2016, 7:04 am

        I doubt it. In my experience, overweight people don’t want to be fat, but once you gain weight it’s extremely hard to lose it. Your physiology literally changes. The empowerment message is a response to already being fat and not wanting to feel like complete shit every day of your life. And also to the fat-shamers. There’s no point knocking them when they’re down. Making people feel horrible about themselves isn’t a good way to motivate them.

      • jlyfsh April 8, 2016, 8:07 am

        Nobody wants to be fat! And it is hard to lose weight. You could see someone who is currently trying to lose weight and never know it. Looking at them doesn’t tell you anything about whether they worked out that day or what they’ve eaten. Or anything about their blood pressure, cholesterol or blood sugar. You can make lots of assumptions. Also how do you know when people aren’t making an effort to lose weight? Because they aren’t magically perfect?

      • Portia April 8, 2016, 8:10 am

        You’re forgetting that there was a time when being fat was a status symbol and a sign of wealth. Being overweight is definitely still stigmatized in our culture.

        I tried to lose weight (15-20 pounds) for almost 5 years – by eating all the veggies, running 10 mile races, barely ever eating sweets. The weight has barely budged. I finally accepted the weight that I am because the alternative is, like RedRover said, feeling shitty about myself and that’s no way to live.

  • Rick April 10, 2016, 11:54 am

    Spin on beauty is changing Hello 21st century humanity nice meeting you. “Fat” is a preferable term as it allows a connotation of strength, fullness, satisfaction and dominance. And in terms of mainstream media, dominant women shouldn’t have to even bother responding to this stuff. It’s like Lebron’s critics- he still gets paid at the end of the day. You’re telling me that’s not sexy?

    Reply Link
  • Janelle April 15, 2016, 2:36 pm

    I could care less what you call someone of any size. I am small and I get made fun of for being thin as much as I hear plus size women claim to be made fun of. That being said no, Amy is NOT a size 6, not by a long shot. I personally see her as plus sized so I don’t see why she shouldn’t be in the magazine. Sounds like she just is upset she was called out for what she is.

    Reply Link

Leave a Comment