Tess Holliday's New Cosmo Cover is Being Praised. Because Everything is Terrible.
Cosmopolitan took a break from being a beauty magazine so Tess Holliday could appear on the cover. In all her rolly, poley glory. It's fine because we've redefined the term "glory" along with "beauty." Unfortunately, our gag reflexes have, so far, failed to evolve (see Fat Pride Propagandist Says ‘F*ck Your Beauty Standards.’ She Has No Standards. and Crowder Goes UNDERCOVER, Crashes ‘Fat Pride’ SXSW Panel…). Here to make magazine covers the new battleground of fat pride, the one and only Tess Holliday.
The model shared a preview of her Cosmopolitan UK cover with her fans, prompting many to express how important it was for them to see a body like theirs represented on the front of a magazine.
Phew, I’m literally a COSMO GIRL!! Can’t believe I’m saying that! 😭😭 Thank you @CosmopolitanUK for this incredible… https://t.co/F2KYHgMNhi— Tess Holliday 🥀 (@Tess Holliday 🥀) 1535552206.0
Seeing bodies 200 pounds smaller on the cover didn't change your life. So I seriously doubt this assertion. But before we hit the insightful commentary you came to read (you didn't come for the cover, am I right), some reactions to this monumental occasion:
@Tess_Holliday @CosmopolitanUK You get it girl!! Show these magazines what beauty really means❤️ https://t.co/LzOSQeitw1— Nakilla (@Nakilla) 1535573134.0
No. No no no. For the love of all that is good and sweet in Odin's beard, no.
Okay, but come on, we've talked about this. Beauty is not to be confused with attraction. The former is actually an objective, mathematical principle, based on ratios. The latter is completely subjective, to be determined in the eye of the beholder. Which means the expression "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is wrong. Attraction is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is in the hands of math. So when "beauty" gets tossed around and applied to everyone, the word loses all meaning. If everyone is beautiful, no one is. Sorry but it's true.
Second thing. Cosmopolitan is free to plaster whomever they like over their magazine covers. We take no issue with their personal choices. Nor do we think they care what our personal choices or preferences are. If Cosmo wanted to feature Chelsea Manning in a saucy two-piece, they could. Not a darn thing we'd be able to do to stop the eye rape.
Third thing. People do not celebrate fatness for the same reason we don't celebrate chain-smoking, alcoholism, or binge-watching Real Housewives. We know unhealthy body types and behaviors almost instinctively. Call it an evolutionary flaw. The normalizing of fatness is a normalizing of bad health. We're not taking aim at fat pride activists for the fun of it. We're concerned with this movement for what it'll do to people struggling with their weight and bad health. Bad health shouldn't be normalized, it won't solve anything and it won't make people happier. Or healthier.
Fourth thing. Magainze, movies, books, television shows aren't meant to reflect yourself back to you. That's what a mirror is for. So if you're looking for visual validation from any of the aforementioned places, you have much larger problems than just your pant size.
Cosmo may believe they're celebrating all body types but since when did all body types become worthy of celebration?