While reading enc’s provocative post about vanity sizes—how size 4 can ironically be considered a “plus” size—I began to reflect on the other end of the size spectrum: the women who wear a size zero.
A size 0 means, quite literally, that the woman doesn’t “matter”—or materialize; there’s nothing to clothe.
I wonder how this can be a point of pride, to have a body that does not matter. For if one does not matter physically, then one does not matter socially, professionally, politically, either.
To be a zero is a double-edged sword: first, there’s the dubiously positive message that the woman’s body is fashionably good; it’s small and slender.
But there’s the flip side too: if one’s body is a zero, then what becomes of the person? Does she have any cultural weight? Or does her bodily lack also negate her presence and authority?
Philosophical dilemmas aside, it must be difficult to clothe a size 0 body. Where does the woman purchase her clothes? In the teen department?
And if so, what does that say about her status as a woman? She’s become culturally diminished once more; whereas her age and experience indicate she’s an adult, vanity sizes tell her she’s a child.
I once knew a man who wanted to design underwear for women. His “brilliant” twist was that they would be in the shape of diapers. He thought they’d be cute; I see nothing appealing about infantilizing women.
To be a “zero,” a “nought,” a “nothing,” stunts women’s personal and professional growth. On a scale of 1 through 10, I rate vanity sizing a big, fat zero.
http://nymag.com/fashion/look/2008/fall/sizezero/ Check out this link for a lad's take on size Zero!