You’ve all probably already seen the picture of model Lizzi Miller in Glamour Magazine below:

If you didn’t happen to catch her on the Today Show this morning, you can watch the video here, or read about here.  The picture has garnered a lot of press, especially in light of Self Magazine‘s over-zealous photoshopping of my beloved Kelly Clarkson (in an issue discussing “full body confidence” of all things! talk about about comedic irony!); see here.

So what’s all the hoopla surrounding Lizzi’s picture in Glamour?  Well, mainly it’s the fact that a woman with a belly appears in a main stream magazine without being photoshopped or with the qualifiers “pregnant” or “fat” attached to her description.  It’s odd that even today we are shocked to see women with meat on their bodies being shown in a positive and natural light, gracing the page right next to Olsen twin look-alikes who so often pervade our magazines.  While Lizzi was not on the cover (she was on page 194, to be exact), it gives a lot of women hope that they will be able to see a more diverse range of body shapes represented so gracefully throughout their mags.  Given the innate (perhaps subconscious) desire to relate to the women in magazines, to find our look-alikes represented as beautiful, it seems that any step to showcase a diverse array of women is a step in creating more healthy attitudes towards what “beautiful” is.

While I was *super* stoked to see a “plus-sized” model in a magazine outside of the “plus-sized” magazine niche, I have to admit that all of the attention paid to Lizzie made me hyper conscious of two things I am a bit uncomfortable with.

One — Lizzi is just plain gorgeous and she doesn’t need the qualifying words “plus-sized” thrown in front of the description “model.” Am I the only one who looks at her and is like, “uhh what is so ‘plus-sized’ about her?”  I also wonder why she couldn’t just as well have graced the cover.  Of course I’m being cranky and knit picky (see my blog title, it’s my right).

Two — I get a little irked when these two words are thrown around in conjunction: real + woman(en). I can’t tell you how many people have  commented that Lizzi is a “real woman” or that finally a “real woman” is represented.  I mean I get what everyone is trying to say, I’m not playing dumb here.  I get that the majority of women in the U.S. are size 12-14, which is Lizzi’s size, but I really don’t like when any chick is heralded as being representative of THE “real woman.” Using that sort of diction favors one type of woman in exclusion of another.  Sure, most grown women are not a size 2.  But according to stats, most women are not a size 20 either – so obviously if we use the average as our gauge for normalcy we’re excluding women on both sides of the size spectrum.  But no woman should be less (or even more “real”) based solely on her size and where she fits in terms of the U.S. average, right?  All women aren’t white and blonde either, ya know what I mean?  We can’t say we want body acceptance, and then exclude a portion of women for not being “real” enough. What I’m trying to defend is the right for ALL women to feel beautiful and adequate.  I guess that’s the challenge inherent in any form of representation.  No woman is ever going to truly represent ALL of us and maybe the lesson here is we shouldn’t be looking for physical “representation” in the first place?  I have yet to see my reflection of a half Caucasian, half Costa Rican, fro-maned chick, with a crooked smile gracing covers yet — but that’s cool

I thought it was interesting and important to note that in Lizzi’s video segment she made a point to remark that she was active and healthy.  I think that’s the key in all of this.  We want “healthy” women gracing our magazines as model representatives.  Do I have it wrong?  What is a “real woman” to you? Does Lizzi represent that? Do you feel adequately represented in today’s mainstream woman’s magazines?  Do you want to be?

Noteworthy In the News/Blogs (A LOT OF SHIZ!)

• Time Magazine‘s, “Getting Real About the High Price of Cheap Food” (8/21/09) here — GREAT READ!
• Science Daily‘s, “Young Women Consistently Exercise Less than Young Men, Study Finds” (8/23/09) here
• Science Daily‘s, “How We Support Our False Beliefs” (8/23/09) here
• New Scientist‘s, “Expanding Waistlines May Cause Shrinking Brains” (8/23/09) here
• Diet Blog‘s “Five Ways to Tame Post-Workout Hunger” (8/24/09) here
• That’s Fit‘s, “Vegetarian Options Rising in Schools” (8/24/09) here
• That’s Fit‘s, “‘Secret Lives of Women: Extreme Diets’: How Extreme Are they?” (8/24/09) here
• Calorie Lab‘s, “PETA Pulls Save the Whales Ad” (8/24/09) here — If you recall here, I wrote about the ridiculous ad by PETA that insinuated chubby beach babes (or “whales”) could lose some weight by going vegetarian.  More than finding it offensive, I found it was misleading given that going vegetarian in and of itself will not cure anyone of a weight issue.  I even found it a bit harmful given that studies have shown teenagers who go veg sometimes choose that lifestyle to mask eating disorders.  Anyhow, the ad has been pulled.  Now go call PETA and tell them they should focus on the ethical treatment of people first so that they may then adequately save the animals.

Give-Away Round Up

• Win some homemade macaroons here — ENDS 9 p.m. EST TONIGHT!
• Win some Solixir, Late July Organic Cookie Sandwiches and a copy of Clean Eating Magazine here
• Win a copy of The Eating Well Diet and Cook Book and an apron here
• Win a Core Precision here
• Win some Chobani yogurt here

<3, The Cranky One