February 8, 2007
From the desk of Jane Galt:Diane Von Furstenburg weasels to the FT on the subject of superskinny models.
FT: You’re also a representative of your industry, and recently in particular there’s been a lot of concern about how the fashion industry has been encouraging extreme thinness among girls and also models. Do you think what they’ve done in Madrid is the right thing to do?Von Furstenberg: I think that to raise that issue, I think it was the best thing. I think it’s great. I think that to raise the issue and to talk about it is great.
The idea of a model should be a little bit deglamourised, because people think being a model is so glamorous and this and that.
So I think that’s great, I think that just the fact that it was raised has allowed people to talk about it in schools, and around dining room tables, because eating disorders is a very serious disease. It is not a disease that can be…
The fashion world is not responsible for that disease, it’s much deeper than that. But because we are in the world of image, and image-making, and we do have models, I think it’s very important that we are sensitive to that. And just by being sensitive to that, and just the fact that the press talks about it now, I think it’s great.
I think the press is also very responsible for having glamourised the models: “Be like a model,” “Be thin like a model,” you know, all the diets and …
But I think hopefully with all that has happened, the pendulum will go the other way.
FT: And what about the Madrid idea of having actual rules for models?
Von Furstenberg: I think that we shouldn’t use models under 16. There are things that should be done.
But it’s all about the body and the morphology. Usually the very successful models are the girls who when they were teenagers were the odd people at school, they said: “Who is that? She’s so tall.” Usually it’s got to do with length more than it has to do with weight.
So I think that it’s very important that the agents know that they should have… that if somebody’s not healthy, they should try to get a certificate from a doctor. Things like that.
I think we should promote health as beauty, for sure. Should we go put women against the wall and start measuring their body fat? Everybody is completely different, so…
Being the dedicated contrarian I am, I feel like I could mount a half-way convincing case against the current crusade for models whose weights are closer to those attainable by average women.
For one thing, anorexia is a terrible disease, but its full-blown form isn't actually all that common. Very, very few women die of it, or its more disgusting cousin, bulimia. And while many women--including, I freely admit, me--flirt with eating disorders in high school and/or college, most of them, including, again, me, grow out of it naturally. Girls in high school and college are emotional train wrecks; if they weren't starving themselves, they'd probably be doing something else equally stupid and dangerous, like . . . oh, I don't know, drinking enough alcohol to kill a moderately-sized pony. As I recall, at one point in high school I was subsisting on a daily diet of one apple (granny smith), a corn muffin, and a bowl of Special K. Sure, I ate the cereal with whole milk, and it was a large muffin, but that can't have been too many calories. And yet despite the occasional tendency to forget to eat when I am busy or upset, I am today a robust creature without noticeable side effects from my juvenile idiocy.
But even if you think that eating disorders are a HUGE problem, it doesn't follow that they're the fault of the fashion industry. Am I doomed to die of a drug overdose just because some of my favourite musicians did?
Yes, the fashion industry and Hollywood portray women who are something like 4&sigma events on the weight distribution. But that's true on a number of different metrics. I don't see very many women on the street with the beauty of, say, a young Elizabeth Taylor. Women in movies have unattainably good hair, personalities, and fashion sense. Why pick on weight, particularly?
Well, because seeking great hair and witty repartee doesn't endanger your health, of course. But that at least would be an argument I'd listen to; if they said "Government, butt out!", it's even an argument I'd buy. Instead, though, the fashion industry's response has been, well, completely fricking repulsive. The one thing that shines through it all is that they don't really care all that much if their choices about body types endanger the models, or for that matter, every single woman in the world.
The weird lies certainly aren't endearing: "Models just look like that naturally!" Some of them do; I have known veritable stick figures who were regarded with something akin to horror by the owners of all-you-can-eat barbeque joints. But at least a plurality of the models I have known live in a state of more or less permanent deprivation. Like Hollywood actresses, they also tend to get thinner as they age, which is not the normal course of events for people who do not have cancer. I also saw some guy on the news claiming that it's just because they're tall. There's a tiny little bit of truth to this--tall women tend to look thinner, because things don't all scale up the same way. (When you read my vital statistics on paper, I sound like a more statuesque Marylin Monroe; my waist is like 11 inches smaller than my hips and bust.) But stating that fashion models look that way because they're tall is ludicrous. Their body-fat percentages are clearly well below 10%, which is not an effect of being tall; it's an effect of having a hyper metabolism, or of starving yourself.
Even weirder are the nasty attacks on the models. "Girls shouldn't glamourise the models--they're walking hangers." No, no, the fashion industry has nothing to do with glamour; it's just like making corrugated paper, but with softer materials, so why on earth would these daft teenagers glamourise it, or want to look like the people that they send down the runway wearing the clothes? "The message I am sending with this show is not 'this is how my fabulous clothes should look'; it's 'these girls should be hung up in a dark space where no one can see them, along with the shoe rack and the winter sweaters' ". Watching people lie like this is embarassing, like when everyone pretends that Granny hasn't been at the scotch even though the empty bottle's right there next to her chair and she's demanding that the grandchildren join her in a Lindy Hop contest.
That's not, of course, a call for government action. But it would be nice if the fashion industry acted as if they cared enough about the persistent and growing tendency to confuse their self worth with various the lumps of animal and vegetable matter they consume to at least consider changing the way they do business. Hell, it would be nice if they acted as if they cared enough about their customers to at least make some effort to lie convincingly.
Posted by Jane Galt at February 8, 2007 9:54 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links"Girls shouldn't glamourise the models--they're walking hangers." No, no, the fashion industry has nothing to do with glamour; it's just like making corrugated paper, but with softer materials, so why on earth would these daft teenagers glamourise it, or want to look like the people that they send down the runway wearing the clothes?
There are two points here. First, the point of models is to sell clothing. Yes, glamour is a part of it, but a very particular type of glamour typified as much by the clothing as the models.
Models that are effectively hangers help accentuate the glamour in the clothing.
Now people associate, and they subconscieniously think that the models actually live the life of couture wearing women. So they want to be like them.
However, it should never be forgotten that women who really are trading on their bodies don't look like fashion models. They look like the attractive young women you grew up with, only more so.
It is not at all clear that being underweight is a health issue. The research on calorie restriction (eating 30% fewer calories) suggests that this is very healthy, both short and long-term.
See http://www.longevitymeme.org/topics/calorie_restriction.cfm as a good starting point on the research.
I remember reading something like 70% of girls with eating disorders read either teen or 17 magazine.
That's not causation, but you comparison isn't fair either. Just because I like Jimmie Hendrix doesn't mean I'll die of an overdose. But it does mean that I like the electric guitar. Just because I like to look at super skinny fashion models also makes it more likely that I'll have a desire to be unattainably thin like those models.
Makes sense to me.
But at least a plurality of the models I have known
Uh...not to divert from the importance of the topic, but when did you start reviewing patent filings? (And this, just when I had finally made peace with the British Speak N' Spell remnants that linger in your posts!)
Ironic that you should post about super skinny models that day that Anna Nicole Smith was found dead.
To chime in with a male cheuvanist pig perspective, I've got to admit, I just don't get it. From what I've seen models usually have beautiful faces, but their bodies...gah! Generally, they look disturbingly asexual. I remember some time ago taking to a girl I was seeing who wanted to be a model and felt she needed a breast reduction. To this day, I can't fathom why a woman would want smaller breasts (absent, of course health issues).
Thorley Winston,
Well that bodes ill for TrimSpa
Women aren't really upset at the number of girls who might endanger themselves trying to reach the goal they feel is set for them by the models in magazines. (As you point out, the number of girls in danger is relatively small.) Rather, the most vocal women are upset by the stress/pressure/distress caused simply by not "measuring up". Women who are not "perfect" (as they think society defines it - i.e., model perfect) feel inferior, less appealing, etc., etc. So, let's blame the good-looking, thinner women, society, men for liking thinner women . . . It's natural, but exaggerated and misplaced.
(Part of where the critics get it wrong, IMHO, is the idea that most of the models are, in fact, someone's ideal. As you point out, the runway models, at least, are not terribly appealing. Hollywood is the more likely source of the "idealized woman" but let's not call on having anyone change those women or I'll demand more dumpy, regular guys as leading men.)
Is it all this just another aspect of the "American Idol" mentality -- I deserved to a famous singer even if I can't sing.
The solution, again IMHO, comes mostly through age and maturity - accepting that all people aren't built the same, some are objectively more physically appealing than others, etc., etc. This campaign cannot change human nature, and teenage girls will continue to stress (to varying degrees based on the girl and her own values) on how closely she comes to a particular ideal.
I am not one to tout the "I'm ok, you're ok" and "Everyone deserves to be happy" brand of self-esteem building, but I do think that (on this issue at least) there is some comfort to be taken in accepting the body type you've been given and worrying more about staying healthy generally, dressing in accordance with your body type (and not a fad) and generally be the best you, you can be rather than something you're not.
This, in my mind, is more likely to lead to a confident woman, and confident women are very appealing.
(Should I expect a raft of crap now?)
AJ,
I see your point, but when the models are usually impossibly skinny (to the point of being extremely unhealthy) and the actors and people on magazine covers are completely reworked in photoshop its no reason why women feel they can't measure up. Their insecurities need to be corrected no doubt, but also our obsession and promotion with an impossible to achieve level of "beauty" is sickening.
Remember that you might not have grown up in it as much as the average 8 year old kid today. I can't count the number of pre-teen kids I've heard talk about needing a diet, or mention calorie counting simply because thats what they see as the fact of life. It will get worse before it gets better methinks.
cdub,
I can't count the number of pre-teen kids I've heard talk about needing a diet, or mention calorie counting simply because thats what they see as the fact of life.
Well, I'm not doubting what you say is true, but how do we reconcile that with the rash of childhood obesity?
To this day, I can't fathom why a woman would want smaller breasts (absent, of course health issues).
Well, some of us were born with them . . .
Except usually the kids talking about diet coke and counting calories aren't the fat ones...at least not in my experience.
To this day, I can't fathom why a woman would want smaller breasts (absent, of course health issues)
I saw items in my GFs catalog advertized as bust-minimizing bra and hip-minizing wide-leg pants.
To me this reads like Mens Suit: Shoulder shrinking jacket and penis minimizing slacks
Anyone can design clothes for a 6' 120lb model. Show me someone who can design something fetching for a 5'4 200lb heffer.
JJM
To this day, I can't fathom why a woman would want smaller breasts (absent, of course health issues).
Actually, if a woman's breasts were so large that she regularly had to deal with stares and rude comments, then I could understand why she might want breast reduction surgery, or at the very least, why she might wear a bust-minimizing bra.
Women wear bust minimisers because some clothes look better with a smaller chest. It gets a bit boring wearing neck lines designed to break up the bulk of my chest sometimes.
As for breast reductions, the sheer mass apparently can be awkward - lower back pain, hassle rolling over in bed, etc. (Mine don't bother me that much, but much bigger would be pain - as it is it's a hassle enough having my waist and hips two sizes smaller than my chest).
Tracy W -- would you marry me? (Kidding! I'm taken).
I must chime in with Karl Smith and Bill Dalasio. If young women want to know what men think is attractive, they really ought to look at Playboy and Penthouse rather than Cosmo. T&A + naked is pretty much what guys like.
Cosmo, on the other hand, is what rich middle-aged women think is attractive.
Cute, anony-mouse, but I suspect she is thinking of one of the alternative meanings. There are, after all, a plurality of meanings. (Three, to be precise, that I found using MSWord's Thesaurus feature.)
littlegirl,
And that's just fine. They're a good, not the good. There's plenty of other assets a woman can leverage.
DRB,
And the middle-aged women get their cues from the fashion industry, which I'm told is based off of what gay men find attractive.
Cute, anony-mouse, but I suspect she is thinking of one of the alternative meanings. There are, after all, a plurality of meanings. (Three, to be precise, that I found using MSWord's Thesaurus feature.)
I presently make a substantial portion of my income from intellectual property-related research, and I've read waaaaayyyyy more than my share of patents. "A plurality of x" starts to push Boring Buttons after a while :-)
I think the easiest standard to set, if one were to set standards on model skinniness, would be: thighs must be thicker than knees. If your knee is the fattest part of your leg, then you are too skinny.
Comments are Closed.