You are here

Misleading and useless CNN video related to New York Spring 2009 fashion week

The clowns at CNN recently released a video on whether thin is still in in the fashion world.

The video is reproduced below should CNN take it off its site.

If you are reading this then you either have javascript turned off or do not have the flash plugin installed. Get Flash.

CNN correspondent Alina Cho starts with the claim that the modeling lifestyle is glamorous.  What is the reality?  Whereas the photoshoots and the catwalk are glamorous, most high-fashion models don’t have a very happy existence.  The glamour is mostly fake or outward.  Too many of them have to starve to fulfill the thinness requirement.  More details on this topic can be found in some previous articles posted at this site:

Only a minority of big-name models approach a happy existence, but they have often gone through starvation misery to make it big.  The video features quotes from Kate Moss…“Nobody ever fed me.”…“I was so thin I hated it.”

Cho even mentions 6 fashion model deaths related to undereating in recent years, but quickly states that this seemed to wake up the fashion industry.  Cho says that the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) issued guidelines “banning runway models under 16” and “calling on designers and casting agents to encourage models who look sick to get help.”  The reality was that the CFDA, facing a potential public relations nightmare resulting from the starvation-caused deaths of some fashion models, issued a statement of fake concern and “guidelines” it had no intention of following through.  Months later, it was clear that the CFDA waited for the hot issue of the deaths to become a distant memory and then went along pretending as if nothing had happened.  Read the details on CFDA lowlife.

Cho wonders what has happened 18-months after the CFDA issued the guidelines.  She asks designer Max Azria whether he has ever seen a model who looked thin and told her that she needs to get help?  Azria indicates that he has often done so and the models now are less thin.  Throughout the video, Cho doesn’t bother discussing the reason why high-fashion models need to be so thin.  Anyone seriously dwelling over this issue will note that all cues point to the designers’ preferences.  So what is the bright idea of asking designers if they have taken some steps to take care of the problem?  All we are going to get are Karl Lagerfeld-like lies.

Cho digresses to the issue of people claiming that models are naturally thin.  Of course, some models are naturally thin but many are being forced to starve.  The central issue is why do they have to be very thin?  We have queers lusting after boys as the majority of the dominant fashion designers, and they are trying to get girl models who look like boys in their early adolescence.  This is why these girls need to be very thin.  I will be skiing in Hell before CNN admits this.

Cho says that there has been a return of the curvy supermodel, mentioning the recent appearance of Linda Evangelista, Christy Turlington and Naomi Campell in some major ad campaigns, and then says that Editors of fashion magazines call it an improvement.  This is a retarded statement.  Geriatric [by industry standards] former supermodels are being featured as a quirk and this won’t last for long.  An unusual event does not a long-term trend make.  In July of this year, Vogue Italia released an issue full of predominantly sub-Saharan African models and it sold very well.  Some people were hailing this as a rebuttal to the notion that “black faces on magazine covers don’t sell the magazine” and saying that there should be no excuse for the rare use of African models in advertising.  The Vogue Italia issue sold well because of it freak novelty.  If the magazine regularly started featuring lots of African models one wonders how long will it be before it goes out of circulation.

And some wonder why it is that the mainstream media keep losing their audience.

Categories: 

Comments

More on the 2009 Spring NY fashion week

An AP report claims that the 2009 Spring NY fashion week featured more size 2 and 4 models than in the recent past. This may very well be, but I’d like to comment on some excerpts, mostly from Nian Fish.

“I think there’s progress,” said Fish, creative consultant for KCD Worldwide, which produces fashion shows and events. “The girls are still slim. We didn’t want them not to be slim. We wanted a projection of health.”

Hon, a one-time minor change is not proof of progress. Under pressure, designers may add more size 2 and 4 models when they are likely to be especially scrutinized, namely during fashion week, but otherwise, as in magazine photoshoots, it will be business as usual.

Because of the [CFDA] initiative, some models were identified as having an eating disorder, referred for treatment and are back on the runways, Fish said. Some who didn’t look healthy weren’t used.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

There has been some pressure for designers to increase their model size to a 6, but the designers prefer models whose modest curves don’t compete with the clothes, Fish said.

Okay hon, I grant you this. But what, pray, explains the typical boyish looks of the models? There is surely no shortage of thin girls with girlish looks.

London recently dropped its plan to require medical exams for models because of a lack of international support.

Lack of support on whose part? The queer designers’!

“Thin is going to be the ruling look — until someone says, ‘I want voluptuous,’” said Fish. “I don’t know if that ever is going to come back.”

Well, I say I want voluptuous, but nothing happens. The ‘someone’ needs to be a large number of fashion designers, and being of the non-queer variety, they will have to form their own alternative fashion industry.

Eating disorders groups have recommended requiring adult models to have a body mass index of at least 18.5 — the lower limits of a normal weight — and an independent medical certification affirming that they do not suffer from an eating disorder. “They do drug testing for sports. Why? To keep competition clean but hopefully also to save lives. That’s what we want, too,” said Lynn Grefe, CEO of the National Eating Disorders Association.

But such measures are called Draconian by Dr. Susan Ice, a medical director for an eating disorders treatment center and member of the Council of Fashion Designers of America health initiative.

For now, the goal is simply to raise awareness, said CFDA president Diane von Furstenberg. “I think that it’s a good thing to do it the way we’re doing it as opposed to throwing those poor girls on a scale and terrifying them even more,” she said.

Raise awareness? You mean that the models don’t know that they are very thin and need to eat in a healthy manner? This clown tries to make it look like it is the fault of the models.

As a new model at 15, Coco Rocha said she went to Singapore and lost 10 pounds in six weeks. When she returned to the U.S. she was so obsessed with food, she beat herself up over eating an apple. “I’ll never forget the piece of advice I got from people in the industry when they saw my new body,” she wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. “They said, ‘You need to lose more weight. The look this year is anorexia. We don’t want you to be anorexic but that’s what we want you to look like.’”

How does one look anorexic without starving?

Agree with everything you are saying except the comment here:

"The Vogue Italia issue sold well because of it freak novelty. If the magazine regularly started featuring lots of African models one wonders how long will it be before it goes out of circulation."

While digressing from the main point, I have to say you are off on this analogy. You are basically stating that if lots of African models were featured in these magazines after a while they'd stop selling. The only way how something like that would happen would be racism of a massive scale. Something that I honestly doubt in this day and age.

Bad call Erik.

However, the the "all black" issue of course was done as a gimmick rather than a serious call to change.

Paul: Racism would have nothing to do with regular use of lots of African models putting the magazine out of circulation. The reasons would be marketability and the preferences of fashion designers. High fashion is a predominantly Western phenomenon and the clients are disproportionately upper class people of European ancestry. Why would you use African models to cater to this demographic? Now, if the industry decided to use African models exclusively then rich people of non-African backgrounds would cater to it because there is no alternative and high fashion merchandize simply has to be obtained, but this is unlikely to happen because most fashion designers prefer white models. So a magazine that tried to be different by regularly featuring lots of African models will not make it in the long run because most others will not do this.

I know the Vogue Italia issue was a gimmick.

"Racism would have nothing to do with regular use of lots of African models putting the magazine out of circulation. The reasons would be marketability and the preferences of fashion designers. High fashion is a predominantly Western phenomenon and the clients are disproportionately upper class people of European ancestry. Why would you use African models to cater to this demographic?"

Such a thing IS racism Erik. Calling it a "preference" is a nice way of avoiding the issue. It's racism. Period.

No, it is not, just as it isn't racism that black women prefer looking at black models in magazines for black women, for example. Let's face it, we are so different that make-up, hairstyles and the colors we can wear are often incompatible.

I am swedish and I have fair skin, blue-green eyes and honey blonde hair, so when I contemplate bying a dress I wouldn't want to see that dress on a black model but on someone who at least somewhat resembles me, so that I can get a picture in my head of how I would look in that dress. That's impossible if the model isn't white. It can be hard even if she is latin since they don't have my colors at all.

A black woman could look stunning in a dress that would totally drain my face of colors. She on the other hand would probably look odd in some of the very soft colors that look good on a white women. She would think those colors look washed out and lack brilliance.

If 90% of the readers of a magazine are white women, for example, the only thing that makes sense is to use white models, just as magazines for black women would use black models - not Scandinavian types. That's not racism, that's common sense.

You people need to stop the race card bit. It's not working, maybe because you misuse it so often.

I totally forgot about this post and haven't really been visiting this site too much since updates have been few and far between.

Nevertheless, I am here and I hope that my reply to you Emily reaches you because I believe you are off the track on this issue. And this seems to be because you are very much a big fan of the fashion industry and I am guessing you find many of their ideals, particularly the kind of models they use, as very agreeable. Me, as a totally heterosexual male can tell you that I don't in any way shape or form.

That said... Yes, it is racism. I don't know who the "you people" you are referring to are but in this case, it is not misused one bit. Your argument is not strong enough to really hold water against it.

Your argument about you wanting to see women that are of the same race as you modeling clothes you would be interested in buying is based on hyperbole. While I imagine there are maybe, perhaps some color combination in clothing that look better on certain skin tones (very rare I imagine and are probably very extreme designs), for the grand majority of clothing race does not clash with it nowhere near as much as you suggest. Consider that men and women of all races and colors will wear a black tuxedo and a white gown on for their wedding respectively.

Anything beyond this is based completely on opinion which if taken further would be a racial preference. Which is a nice way of writing "racism".

Even taking your argument into consideration, you wanting a model of the same race as you in order to get an idea of how you would appear in such a dress should not be a preference that impairs other women who are interested in similar clothing to see it on a model of their own race. This creates a very sound reason to use a black model to showcase the clothing for black interest following your own logic.

For your argument to prove that using black models would lower sales to the point of collapsing a magazine entirely would not be the result of any sort of racism would mean that in the current world that all black models' clothing is very specific to them and in no way shape or form are similar to what their white counterparts wear. From quick glimpses into the many pictures of the runway culture, I can say that is not the case most of the time.

The situation with a low amount of black models being used is based on racism within the majority of the fashion designs. Or, "race preference" if we need lack the balls to just plain say what it is.

But I think this is a good thing in the bigger picture. Because if more black models were used than that would mean the fashion industry would be turning their twisted eyes towards a new market. That would eventually lead to a corruption of a whole new audience to their sickness resulting in the media representation of black women to look more masculine like whites are dealing with right now. So in a way, the racism in this case is a good thing.

Finally, "latin" is not a race. Even though the term is so misused and misunderstood by the mainstream, its true definition simply refers to people or things from the region of Latin America. Contrary to what you think, there are many Latin girls that fit your physical description.

Paul: Emily is apparently not a big fan of the fashion industry and does not agree with the very thin standard they use.

Your reply to her does not take into consideration the market. High-fashion merchandize disproportionately caters to people of European ancestry. If you look at companies selling ready-to-wear clothes meant for mass consumption, they use models of all ethnic backgrounds, and in sufficient numbers.

Also, even if the same clothes/styles go with people of any ethnic background, people will often prefer to see someone of their ethnic background model the clothes.

You cannot describe preference as racism. Most prefer their own kind. Does this make most racist? If I hired based on looks when looks don’t matter then this is discrimination, which, depending on other circumstances, may be a form of racism. But when looks matter, as in modeling, and the people doing the selection are basing it on their aesthetic preferences, you cannot describe this as racism.

I apologize then if Emily is not the kind of person I thought she was. I came off of replying to another girl on this site and must've grouped them together since Emily was being very specific in her answer that made her sound like of fan of the industry.

Nevertheless, preference of one's own race is racism Erik. We as humans are still far behind healthy mindsets when it comes to race. Why anyone would "prefer" their own race in anything is silly. They are good and bad things of any race and no race is superior to another race. I don't have any preference when it comes to race in any sense. Rare as it sounds, it's very true in my case.

The only times I can see when a disproportionate number of one race dominates a field and it not be racist is when it is based on some skill that seems to favor one race for whatever reason or for sociological reasons a race is attracted to that field. I am talking about sports. For example, basketball is dominated by black players and hockey white players. Now unless I am wrong, it seems to me most blacks are usually taller than whites which would come into benefit playing basketball. Also, basketball is a relatively cheap sport to partake in unlike hockey and since most blacks are lower to middle class it would be far easier for blacks to practice basketball than hockey. Therefore, to see more black players in basketball and more white players in hockey is not racist.

However, the fashion industry is based on little skill from its models and bases their picks of models according to the preference of the fashion designers. While I do not argue against the fact that the main target audience for fashion is white and I also do not argue that the industry is catering to their main target audience, what I am arguing is that the preference is a racist one.

Paul: A preference for one’s own kind is not racist. It has been observed among many animal species: the majority of individuals in different geographic populations of the same species preferring their own kind. I don’t suppose you will call these non-human species racist.

You indicated no preference for your own kind as opposed to another kind. Some prefer another kind to their own kind. But the majority of people prefer their own kind. This is natural, and has nothing to do with superiority-inferiority.

You are willing to admit that differential representation of various ethnic groups in specific sporting activities is based on natural differences in athletic ability and thereby not racist. To some extent this is true, but a careful examination will reveal racism at play sometimes. In the United States, African-American and white men are well-matched for height, and there are a lot more white men. Height is not a factor behind the overrepresentation of African-Americans in American basketball. Removing the height factor, success in basketball depends on a number of abilities that are unlikely to overwhelmingly favor African-Americans. African-Americans may have an advantage in being able to jump higher. On the other hand, there are many examples of talented white basketball players that are set aside for less qualified African-American players, and you can find many examples documented at http://www.castefootball.us (see basketball section).

Unlike sports, you don’t consider skill as much of a factor in the fashion industry/modeling. The analog of skills/ability for modeling is looks or beauty. What if the differential representation of various ethnic groups among models is based on natural differences in beauty? In this case you would not invoke racism if the differential representation is consistent with ethnic differences in average beauty.

Whereas this site argues that it is not possible to objectively compare the attractiveness of different ethnic groups, the argument is technical and abstract. In practice, people generally regard Europeans or whiter-looking people among their own better looking. The three main reasons for this preference are that most people in most populations prefer lighter skins, people in all populations prefer more overall derived facial features, and secondary sexual characteristics in Europeans are more pronounced than in a large number of populations (e.g., Asiatic populations) and the majority of humans (partly because most humans are Asiatic).

The preferences for more overall derived facial features and somewhat exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics are intrinsic and have nothing to with racism. The skin color issue is a different matter. The bias toward lighter skins found among most people in most populations is some combination of intrinsic preferences and the global reach of Western media. This suggests that the overrepresentation of white models is possibly partly an issue of colorism but not racism because skin color is not a major correlate of ethnicity. And if indeed colorism is involved then, then regarding skin color, overrepresentation of white models is in large part to what, using the language of the academic left, can be termed as “internalized colorism.”

If you were to insist that colorism be labeled racism then only a small part of the overrepresentation of Europeans among models is potentially accounted for by racism, which will largely be of the internalized variety using the language of the left. If you consider that most people selecting these models are also of European ancestry and that Europeans generally show less of an interest in skin color than many non-European populations, then colorism or, if you insist, racism potentially accounts for very little of why Europeans are overrepresented among models.

Non-whites LOVE to use the race card as soon as they are given an opportunity to do so, no matter how utterly ridiculous and empty their arguments may be. Here they seem to consistently inject racism and talk of "superiority", when the real issue is beauty and femininity. To me, it seems much like inferiority complex.

Saying it is racism to prefer your own people is laughable. Then the vast majority of people are racists since they DO tend to prefer their own people. Of course, only whites get attacked for this natural order - never non-whites, who on the contrary are encouraged to idolize their own and to show "racial pride" and a sense of identity and loyalty towards their own people, first and foremost.

To most people - regardless of race - whites, generally, are more beautiful and pleasing to the eye, and much more feminine. Generally speaking, black women don't even come close, often being far too robust, coarse and animal-like in appearance, unless racially mixed with whites or surgically altered in order to look more white, or less black, whichever way you prefer to look at it.

Some blacks may be better at some things, such as some sports(although I believe some of this might be due to blacks being more open and willing to taking steroids) and whites are generally better at "beauty". No one says life is fair, and regardless of what they told you when you were a kid we are not born "equals". The only thing we can do is live as good as we can with the cards we were dealt, and try not to be bitter about it. ;)

Emily,

"Some blacks may be better at some things, such as some sports(although I believe some of this might be due to blacks being more open and willing to taking steroids) and whites are generally better at "beauty".

There you go. You believe that the only way another race can be good at anything is if they take steroids or somehow artificially enhance their talents and attributes. Honestly, you believe that the white race is better at everything right? And more specifically Nordics.

Black people are better at sports because they are more adapted to a physically demanding environment. Hello, they come from Africa. Everything in Africa is wilder and bigger. Period. Maybe you should take a trip down there hunny, I don't think you'd last very long.

Whites cannot be better at beauty since beauty requires little to no effort. If you are beautiful chances are you are naturally beautiful. People are born beautiful and after that there is little effort to beinb beautiful besides maintaining oneself. SO your sentence should say that whites are luckier in the beauty area, not that they are better at being beautiful. Period.

Obviously, your comments are so biased its actually funny you think people are just mad at you because they are jealous. You try to make this a boo hoo for whites who can't voice their opinions. You make this issue about political correctness, when its actually not. People don't dislike you because you have a different opinion, they dislike you because your opinion is obviously biased.

Sorry, the paragraph above was by me.

Oh,

And might I add Emily,

that yes this issue is about superiority. You are the one that reveals this over and over. You compare black people to appear more like animals. The only reason you would mention this is to give the reader an comparison. You want to associate people with animals, or less superior beings to us (since we are all animals technicall). This clearly shows that you believe white people to be more superior, because they are less animilistic. Therefore, this is a superiority issue. What you write is just a reflection of how you see people. You are attempting to dehumanize a whole race, and this is problematic. The problematic part is that you associate black people with inferior animals, dehumanizing them, and in turn suggesting that black people can be viewed and treated as inferiors. This is scary since we often kill animals and use them for labor. Hmmm....

Then you fail to acknowledge that black people can be athletically superior. You once again try to dehumanize them by demonstrating that they are prone to have lesser morals (I believe they are prone to taking steriods was the kind of comment you made). Black people in fact have higher testosterone levels allowing them to be more athletic than the other races on average. So you can acknowledge that Nordic women are more feminine and beautiful due to higher estrogen levels in women but you cannot acknowledge that black people are more athletic due to testosterone levels? Your bias and sick views are revealed over and over again. You have no respect for others and I question YOUR morals, not black peoples because "they take steroids".

Bad arguments must end!

Godis: You are in sore need of some training in logical reasoning. If someone invokes a more animal-like appearance, then it does not mean that this is the same as an argument of inferiority because people know better than to base a judgment of superiority-inferiority on looks alone. Emily is under no illusion how well her skin would stand up to the sun in tropical Africa. This makes her no more inferior to Africans than the appearance of Africans makes them inferior to Emily.

I am not defending Emily’s use of ‘a more animal-like appearance.’ The term is incorrect and should have been avoided. Her reference is to the more overall ancestral facial appearance of sub-Saharan Africans, which is a fact. But you must not extrapolate Emily’s comment to an attempt on her part to dehumanize and treat Africans as inferiors. Putting words in people’s mouth is bad manners, and when you assign such serious charges (bias, sick views, no respect for others, etc.) then you force your opponent to defend herself; it’s a recipe for a disastrous flame war or trashed discussion thread.

The fallacy of your reasoning is aptly illustrated thus. Picture a dirty, smelly homeless beggar who cannot string a coherent sentence together, i.e., someone of little education and low intelligence. How would people react to him? Some will ignore him, others will tell him to go away, some will make fun of him, some may try to have fun with him, some would attack him, and some will help him with food or money. The helpers will have no doubts that they are superior to the beggar on most issues that matter, but they still ended up helping the beggar. This is a straightforward example of a generic situation documented in the sociological literature: beliefs of superiority are neither necessary nor sufficient for discriminatory, racist or dehumanizing behaviors. Thus, it does not follow from Emily’s stated beliefs about beauty that she necessarily harbors a view of overall superiority-inferiority or that she is desirous of or inclined toward discriminatory, racist or dehumanizing behaviors toward those she considers inferior on one or more counts.

You must not make serious accusations against people without good proof.

Godis: The issue of sub-Saharan African athletic ability and testosterone levels has come up before. People of sub-Saharan African ancestry dominate a minority of sports whereas people of European ancestry dominate the majority of sports. Overall athletic ability in individuals is better assessed by performance in interactive sports or sports resembling fighting, and you can look up what proportion of martial arts champions, fencers, etc. are sub-Saharan African. With the opening up of Eastern Europe to the world, now even the heavyweight boxing champions are less likely to be sub-Saharan African. You should also look at the decathlon. Your comment about sub-Saharan African (or even a sub-group such as West African) athletic superiority is unsupported. And reconsider your notion about higher testosterone levels in sub-Saharan African males; start here (this is a discussion thread that you should have gone over since you have left comments there).

Besides, Emily has implied that sub-Saharan Africans are better at some sports without the use of ergogenic aids such as anabolic androgenic steroids. And her suggestion about greater willingness on the part of sub-Saharan African athletes to take steroids is not interpretable as low morals among them because this is a specific example and Emily has made no attempt to speculate on what reasoning goes behind this greater willingness.

What's wrong with saying "more animal-like" if that is what you see? I call a spade a spade. Oversensitivity to the issue only gives it more value. In other words, people see the same thing but are less honest about it than I am. lol

By the way, Godis..I LOVE and ADORE animals, so that expression was in no way meant to offend. I think far more highly of them than of most people. It's no secret that some blacks do resemble animals a little, and that it is not going to win them any beauty contests. I'm sorry if that truth hurts, but then again, so do some words used about whites, so I see no difference here and I don't intend to use any double standard.

Erik said Bad arguement must end!

I guess that applies to you and Emily as well and not just anyone who contradicts you.

Emily, my dear, you are just a Nordic wannabe. In one of the comments you mentioned you're an American and everyone knows Americans are more mixed ethnically than any other country so it's really odd that you proclaim your superiority when you are basically a mutt, a mongrel. Stop fooling yourself, you are not "a white/nordic angel, shat out from heaven" according to Godis. Loved that comment Godis, your sense of humour is ace ;).

Emily and Erik probably think they are gods and needs to be worshipped because they have been shat out from heaven.

Yes, Emily we should be happy with the cards we've been dealt with. Yes, we've all been given the same head, hands, feet as whites, it's not like white's have been blessed with an extra head or something.

Why do you insist people are playing the race card when you take every chance you can to insist "whites are superior","whites are superior","whites are superior" and on and on and on.

Yes, we can smell the stink of bigotry and insecurity and you two reek of it.

Erik said Bad arguement must end!

I guess that applies to you and Emily as well and not just anyone who contradicts you.

Emily, my dear, you are just a Nordic wannabe. In one of the comments you mentioned you're an American and everyone knows Americans are more mixed ethnically than any other country so it's really odd that you proclaim your superiority when you are basically a mutt, a mongrel. Stop fooling yourself, you are not "a white/nordic angel, shat out from heaven" according to Godis. Loved that comment Godis, your sense of humour is ace ;).

Emily and Erik probably think they are gods and needs to be worshipped because they have been shat out from heaven.

Yes, Emily we should be happy with the cards we've been dealt with. Yes, we've all been given the same head, hands, feet as whites, it's not like white's have been blessed with an extra head or something.

Why do you insist people are playing the race card when you take every chance you can to insist "whites are superior","whites are superior","whites are superior" and on and on and on.

Yes, we can smell the stink of bigotry and insecurity and you two reek of it.

Also, you don't dehumanize someone just by telling what they remind a little of physically. THIS site is about physical appearance..about looks. Try, for once, to remember that. In that context, it is appropriate to compare looks to other things, never mind if it is not to someone's liking. Some say some whites look like corpses or albinos, which would be far worse comparisons than animals, in my view. If that is their honest opinion they are free to say it in this context, since that is what they think. Get it? This site is about LOOKS.

Bringing politics into this is very lame and it's not working. For the record, using ad hominem attacks the way you always do, bringing other issues into this and accusing me of this and that, tells me what kind of person you are. Personal attacks don't attack my arguments. I know you want to discredit me, but the only person you discredit is yourself. Why you would be so interested in analyzing me instead of sticking to the arguments I don't know. It's flattering in a way, but also disturbing, I think.

Don't lie. I'm not American at all, and never said I were. I am 100% Swedish and I live in Sweden. Erik would know where I'm writing from so let's skip the BS. I'm flattered that you lied, though. I didn't think my English was that good. :)

Emily,

Oh, I honestly can't remember maybe I confused you with another poster.

You've posted so much words of wisdom from toilet habits of this ethnicity to animal like appearance of that ethnicity. It's hard to keep track.

Click here to post a new comment