Much has been made of the Beth Ditto cover story of Love Magazine's first issue. A fat woman, stark naked, in a glamourous photo shoot, and on the cover of a mainstream fashion magazine, it's definitely something new. But when the story is put into context, it's obvious that this move is tokenistic and played for shock value, and unfortunately it probably doesn't mark a precedent for bigger women in mainstream media.Though Ditto may be the cover girl, among the other pop icons profiled in the issue (Iggy Pop, Courtney Love, Kate Moss), she's still the odd girl out. All the other subjects are rail thin (and save one, they're all white). Her difference is touted not only in the text of the article, where it is repeatedly pointed out, but in the images that accompany it. Ditto's otherness is emphasized by the fact that she's completely naked, and combined with her makeup, hair, and unusual jewelry she almost seems alien. It makes one wonder if promoting her is really a progressive move by the magazine, or simply an effort to seem "edgy" and new, to compete with established magazines in a tough market.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly enjoyed the article in many ways. It was exhilarating to a fat female body shown in a glamourous, flattering light for once, I couldn't stop looking at the photographs. But, as my fellow pirate Jenna pointed out to me, there is another side to this article. I'm interested in seeing Love's next issue and if they continue pushing boundaries or just regurgitate conventional representations, while throwing in a few tokens for edge factor.
I think the site is great, but the obsessive focus on Beth Ditto isn't going to win any votes for feminism. Beth Ditto is to female empowerment what Eddie Murphy is to Black Power- a mean-spirited joke ON the Other, perpetuated BY the Other. There's nothing subversive about what she's doing, she's using her body to sell herself. It's no different from what tiny Pop tarts do, Ditto's just twice as big as the average celebrity.
ReplyDeleteDitto makes a fool out of herself in every appearance. She's loud, not especially intelligent, and dresses like trash. If we don't like it in Britney Spears, why get so excited about it in Ditto?
If you want to show that big is beautiful, why don't you feature a large lady with class, instead of someone who turns herself into a sideshow for self-promotion? Camryn Manheim is amazing, and a much better representation of the average large woman. Beth Ditto makes me sick.
All good points. And I think our honeymoon with Beth Ditto is ending, don't worry ;)
ReplyDeletehmm... sideshow? really? considering this women is openly queer in love with her trans boyfriend, and creating a plus size clothing line i would disagree that *she* is promoting herself as a sideshow. in fact, i would feel way more comfortable placing blame on the fashion industry that uses size 0 as normative and designates plus size women as non normative I would actually like to pose the question that she could be possibly playing with the satire/irony of her position in those magazines. All of those outfits were custom made for her by high end fashion houses, and i am sure she had a say in what it is she was going to wear. i personally, dont want to end my affair with Ditto, i want to embrace what she represents, while questioning *how* she is represented.
ReplyDeleteoh also ... when we bounce into the notion of "she's using her body to sell herself." - i think this needs to be considered within an economic discourse where power entangles itself around bodies participating within a power structure that is not in favor of them. - again, i really want to understand why we're blaming Ditto for an invasive power structure that inculcates her subordination!
ReplyDelete"...within an economic discourse where power entangles itself around bodies participating within a power structure that is not in favor of them."
ReplyDeleteI don't intend this to be rude, but that comment makes no sense in regard to how Ditto self-promotes. The fact that she's doing her own plus size clothing line just means she's doing her own plus size clothing line- it's not a revolutionary act to design clothes that fit a particular size. And it's not revolutionary for a large woman to wear "provocative" clothing that is more commonly seen on a skinny body- that's a postfeminist delusion. If you honestly believe that women become empowered by showing as much of their bodies as possible, by being as crass and libidinous as possible, then Ditto would be empowered and empowering to other women. Otherwise she's doing more damage than she's doing good.
The feminism that you seem to be espousing in the Dittophilia is the kind that drives people away from feminism. I agree that beauty norms are ridiculous, and no one should ever, ever, ever be made to feel inferior because of their appearance. But, you're making a saint out of a woman who sings, wears skimpy clothing, and encourages others to do the same. The adoration you have for Ditto might be better applied to a woman who has actually done something asides from making chubby white girls in North America feel good about themselves.
Before you canonize Ditto, you might want to think about how completely useless her spectacle is in the grand scheme of things. Maybe when a woman isn't raped every thirty seconds, (right here in North America), or when we've closed down all the sweatshops where millions of women and children work for less than a dollar a day, then maybe, we can return to Ditto and pat her on the back for how much she has improved the state of women everywhere.
Until then, you should perhaps cut down on the Dittophilia a smidge. Like it or not, there are much bigger fish to fry than the beauty and fashion industries.
Okay i have been way to busy to respond to the annoymous comment in full - my last response was so half ass - so here i go again.
ReplyDelete1. i think you misunderstood me. annoymous quoted my little economic discourse bit about beth ditto participating in a power structure thats not in favor of her. and in no way do i believe her participation is revolutionary, but i do believe her existence in this power structure is something to be critiqued, and even praised - however your critique is focused on how shes just a fat spectacle making "white girls in north america feel good" - i dont think this is bad thing. why shoudn't chubby white girls have a pop star that is closer to their size? we are not canonizing her in any way, her image is certainly iconic and being used by the main stream media, and that is something im interested in analyzing - how they treat her, how shes interpreted, and how she presents herself - and you think that she presents her self as a spectacle, i think her "spectacle" awesome!
2. "But, you're making a saint out of a woman who sings, wears skimpy clothing, and encourages others to do the same." - actually no we're not. we're fans of her music and think her ability to sing about queer rights and size is neat. i don't believe shes a saint, and i don't think shes an appropriate role model for everyone.
3. "Before you canonize Ditto, you might want to think about how completely useless her spectacle is in the grand scheme of things."
actually i dont think its useless at all - a diverse spectrum of bodies that interupts and playfully challenge hedgmonic bodies in pop culture helps broaden normative perceptions on size and sexuality. You suggested we focus on Camryn Manheim, but she is not a current popular culture fugure that we find interesting. i think our ideas of feminist icons is different - thats okay, but lets not create a hierarchy.
4. And you want our popular culture blog to talk about rape, and sweatshops - which are all terrible things -im sure as we grow as a blog a lot of this will come into our discussions, but as of late we have been focused on representations of our bodies in pop culture.