The size and shape of the “average” U.S. consumer today is dramatically different from what it was 60 years ago. Nevertheless, apparel companies still develop clothing lines based on a 1941 military study that set sizing standards based on a small sample of mostly white, young (and presumably physically fit) female soldiers. Those standards are finally starting to change based on the fact that the typical woman’s body is no longer as “petite” as it used to be. The most commonly purchased dress today is a size 14; it was a size 8 in 1985!
Standards based upon an outdated snapshot of U.S. women need to recognize the diversity of today’s ethnic population: According to current criteria, fully 78 percent of African American women and 72 percent of Hispanic women are overweight, compared to 58 percent of white women. And non-Caucasian body shapes differ as well—for example, Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans tend to be shorter than their Caucasian counterparts. The clothing industry can’t take the market potential of this segment lightly—women spent about $47 billion on plus-size garments in 2005, accounting for 20 percent of the total apparel market.
The standards we use to evaluate physical attractiveness go more than skin deep. Beauty affects a wide range of outcomes, as we do tend to judge a book by its cover. By the way, this bias affects both men and women—men with above-average looks earn about five percent more than those of average appearance, and those who are below average in appearance make an average of nine percent less than the norm.
Although beauty may be only skin deep, throughout history women have worked hard to attain it. They have starved themselves; painfully bound their feet; inserted plates into their lips; spent countless hours under hair dryers, in front of mirrors, and beneath tanning lights; and opted for breast reduction or enlargement operations to alter their appearance and meet their society’s expectations of what a beautiful woman should look like.
In retrospect, we can characterize periods of history by a specific “look,” or ideal of beauty. Often these relate to broader cultural happenings, such as today’s emphasis on fitness and toned bodies. One study compared measures of the public’s favorite actresses with socioeconomic indicators between 1932 and 1995. When market conditions were bad, people preferred actresses with mature features, including small eyes, thin cheeks, and a large chin. When the economy was in good shape, however, the public embraced women with babyish features, such as large eyes and full cheeks.
In much of the nineteenth century, the desirable waistline for U.S. women was 18 inches, a circumference that required the use of corsets pulled so tight that they routinely caused headaches, fainting spells, and possibly even the uterine and spinal disorders common among women of the time. Although modern women are not quite as “straight-laced,” many still endure such indignities as high heels, body waxing, eyelifts, and liposuction. In addition to the millions women spend on cosmetics, clothing, health clubs, and fashion magazines, these practices remind us that—rightly or wrongly—the desire to conform to current standards of beauty is alive and well.
Our culture communicates these standards—subtly and not so subtly—virtually everywhere we turn: on magazine covers, in department store windows, on TV shows. Feminists argue that fashion dolls, such as the ubiquitous Barbie, reinforce an unnatural ideal of thinness. When we extrapolate the dimensions of these dolls to average female body sizes, indeed they are unnaturally long and thin. If the traditional Barbie doll were a real woman, her dimensions would be 38-18-34! In 1998, Mattel conducted “plastic surgery” on Barbie to give her a less pronounced bust and slimmer hips, but she is still not exactly dumpy.
A provocative campaign by Dove that started in Europe featuring women with imperfect bodies in their underwear may help. One ad reads, “Let’s face it, firming the thighs of a size 8 supermodel wouldn’t have been much of a challenge.” Unilever initiated the campaign after its research showed that many women didn’t believe its products worked because the women shown using them were so unrealistic. Perhaps at least partly because of the success of the Dove campaign, other companies also are turning to ordinary people instead of professional models when they advertise. McDonald’s held a casting call for consumers who will appear on its world cup and bag packaging as an extension of its “I’m lovin’ it” campaign. Nike and Wal-Mart also have run advertisements with average Janes.
Will the backlash against the pressure to be thin reach the more rarefied air of the haute couture industry, whose customers can never (as the saying goes) be too thin or too rich? A few recent tragedies have certainly fueled the fire; in less than two months, four young Brazilian women died in widely publicized cases of anorexia, which sparked an international debate about body image and eating disorders. Unilever banned the use of so-called “size 0” models in its ads for products ranging from Lux shower gel and Sunsilk shampoo to Slim-Fast diet drinks. How permanent will these changes be? For now, we’ll simply have to weight and see.