Under new French law, Anorexia is now unfashionably thin
April 3, 2015 4:22 PM Subscribe
France divides the fashion world by banning skinny models France has sent shock waves through the global fashion industry by passing a surprise law making it a criminal offence to employ dangerously skinny women on the catwalk.
Related:
France Moves to Ban Ultra-Thin Models and Pro-Anorexia Websites
France passes law to ban super skinny models in anorexia crackdown
France: Thin Models Banned In An Effort To Prevent Eating Disorders
Related:
France Moves to Ban Ultra-Thin Models and Pro-Anorexia Websites
France passes law to ban super skinny models in anorexia crackdown
France: Thin Models Banned In An Effort To Prevent Eating Disorders
Literally policing women's bodies, then? For some reason I'm unconvinced that this will end well.
posted by howfar at 4:34 PM on April 3, 2015 [19 favorites]
posted by howfar at 4:34 PM on April 3, 2015 [19 favorites]
They're trying to outlaw a mental health disorder? There will be literal body police?
posted by indubitable at 4:36 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by indubitable at 4:36 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
No, they are trying to stop the fashion world (and some websites) from actively promoting anorexia as a good thing. This is a law about what the fashion industry can do, not about what private individuals can do.
posted by Michele in California at 4:40 PM on April 3, 2015 [69 favorites]
posted by Michele in California at 4:40 PM on April 3, 2015 [69 favorites]
But the fashion industry are private individuals...
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 4:44 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Promoting anorexia is definitely a problem, but firing a bunch of women for being skinny seems even worse.
posted by foobaz at 4:47 PM on April 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by foobaz at 4:47 PM on April 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think the intent to is prevent the fashion industry from actively encouraging models to starve themselves. I am okay with that.
posted by Michele in California at 4:49 PM on April 3, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by Michele in California at 4:49 PM on April 3, 2015 [25 favorites]
With all due respect to the horrors of eating and dysmorphic disorders, there are some folks who are naturally rail thin, sometimes even at above avg caloric intake. Where to put the due process, at the dinner table?
posted by Fupped Duck at 4:51 PM on April 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Fupped Duck at 4:51 PM on April 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
This is a law about what the fashion industry can do, not about what private individuals can do.
Except for those private individuals who happen to be underweight, who will now no longer have jobs.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:52 PM on April 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Except for those private individuals who happen to be underweight, who will now no longer have jobs.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:52 PM on April 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Two days too late on this story.
Also, "dangerously thin" just sounds like an extremely subjective metric and one that will only encourage more policing of women's bodies, so… not really sure that this is more than the politician's fallacy.
posted by klangklangston at 4:54 PM on April 3, 2015
Also, "dangerously thin" just sounds like an extremely subjective metric and one that will only encourage more policing of women's bodies, so… not really sure that this is more than the politician's fallacy.
posted by klangklangston at 4:54 PM on April 3, 2015
But the fashion industry are private individuals...
I'm not positive that an industry or the corporations within it count as individuals. Would love to know what you mean, here.
For myself, I immediately think that this will end up with people using legal loopholes to put the same models at the same weight on the runway, COMBINED with an incredibly unsatisfactory definition about what "dangerously skinny" means.
So I ask myself, "ok, but you know that the weight of fashion models has a negative impact on body image for many women, and you know that the lengths some women have gone to to conform to what the fashion industry considers acceptable have been dangerous at times... so now what? If this is the wrong step to take, what's the right step?"
And I don't know. The closest I come to a reasonable stand is "Defining what is acceptable for a woman to look like is, right off the bat, not ok. But that's exactly what the fashion industry attempts to do every day, and it's to the detriment of women (in my opinion) everywhere." And then my brain runs around in a circle, because again I can't come up with a solution.
This is the Wag The Dog of body issues. The question isn't "how do we fix the bodies we see?" The question is "how do we change what people expect and want to see from the fashion industry?"
Me? I vote for publicly flogging the Editor-In-Chief of every fashion magazine that photoshops models to be thinner and/or promotes anorexia as a beauty ideal. Boom. Elect me.
posted by shmegegge at 4:54 PM on April 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
I'm not positive that an industry or the corporations within it count as individuals. Would love to know what you mean, here.
For myself, I immediately think that this will end up with people using legal loopholes to put the same models at the same weight on the runway, COMBINED with an incredibly unsatisfactory definition about what "dangerously skinny" means.
So I ask myself, "ok, but you know that the weight of fashion models has a negative impact on body image for many women, and you know that the lengths some women have gone to to conform to what the fashion industry considers acceptable have been dangerous at times... so now what? If this is the wrong step to take, what's the right step?"
And I don't know. The closest I come to a reasonable stand is "Defining what is acceptable for a woman to look like is, right off the bat, not ok. But that's exactly what the fashion industry attempts to do every day, and it's to the detriment of women (in my opinion) everywhere." And then my brain runs around in a circle, because again I can't come up with a solution.
This is the Wag The Dog of body issues. The question isn't "how do we fix the bodies we see?" The question is "how do we change what people expect and want to see from the fashion industry?"
Me? I vote for publicly flogging the Editor-In-Chief of every fashion magazine that photoshops models to be thinner and/or promotes anorexia as a beauty ideal. Boom. Elect me.
posted by shmegegge at 4:54 PM on April 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
Justinian: But the fashion industry are private individuals...So, you believe corporations are people? Because in my worldview, no industry is people, and it's perfectly OK to regulate industries so that they don't promote harm.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:58 PM on April 3, 2015 [38 favorites]
The law appears to apply to bmi at time of hiring, plus a short time after, from the articles I read. Everybody read the articles, right...?
And any how, most of these models go to great lengths to achieve their extremely low bodyweights. The pressure from their employers is notorious and well documented. Mostly they are NOT at their "natural" bodyweight, but have employed fasting, dehydration, laxatives, etc to get there. It's all extremely harmful and exploitative. Surprised at the pushback, honestly.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 4:59 PM on April 3, 2015 [75 favorites]
And any how, most of these models go to great lengths to achieve their extremely low bodyweights. The pressure from their employers is notorious and well documented. Mostly they are NOT at their "natural" bodyweight, but have employed fasting, dehydration, laxatives, etc to get there. It's all extremely harmful and exploitative. Surprised at the pushback, honestly.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 4:59 PM on April 3, 2015 [75 favorites]
There was a documentary I watched a long time ago on Netflix ("America The Beautiful" maybe?) that focused a lot around a young girl, I think twelve years old, who was a pretty successful model. Skinny skinny skinny. She ran into problems at some point where it was suggested that she lose weight in order to get a gig. I wish I recalled more details about it, but this was for a very high-profile name that a lot of girls would dream to work with.
I do remember her pointing at herself, spinning around, going "They think I need to lose weight?" She was a tall twig, an incomprehensibly low level of normal body fat for a CHILD... It just blew my mind that someone looked at her and thought she wasn't skinny enough.
Luckily it began the disillusionment and ultimately she gave up this career path, but I am all for policing the fashion industry and knocking some sense into the people who hire models.
posted by erratic meatsack at 5:03 PM on April 3, 2015 [24 favorites]
I do remember her pointing at herself, spinning around, going "They think I need to lose weight?" She was a tall twig, an incomprehensibly low level of normal body fat for a CHILD... It just blew my mind that someone looked at her and thought she wasn't skinny enough.
Luckily it began the disillusionment and ultimately she gave up this career path, but I am all for policing the fashion industry and knocking some sense into the people who hire models.
posted by erratic meatsack at 5:03 PM on April 3, 2015 [24 favorites]
Although the ban does not specifically define the term “thin,” the amendment states “the activity of model is banned for any person whose Body Mass Index (BMI) is lower than levels proposed by health authorities and decreed by the ministers of health and labor.”
As reported by MSN, lawmakers previously stated that models will be required to prove they have “a BMI of at least 18.”
Not sure exactly what to think on this. I Googled information for what the current body types are for fashion models and this was what I got.
Editorial / Fashion modeling:
female:
5'8 to 6'0
90lb- 120lb
A BMI calculator I used says for a woman 5'9 BMI 18 is 122 pounds. If models.com guidelines are accurate, that is definitely shifting the floor significantly up. Are all 5'9 models under BMI 18 anorexic though? I don't think so, right? It seems to me that is a question for a doctor. BMI is not a precision tool for if a weight is unhealthy for a particular individual, over or under, especially when we are talking a couple pounds difference.
The French government obviously has a right to regulate an industry that is damaging the health of employees and consumers, but I feel like this might be on the heavy handed side compared to some other potential options.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:05 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
As reported by MSN, lawmakers previously stated that models will be required to prove they have “a BMI of at least 18.”
Not sure exactly what to think on this. I Googled information for what the current body types are for fashion models and this was what I got.
Editorial / Fashion modeling:
female:
5'8 to 6'0
90lb- 120lb
A BMI calculator I used says for a woman 5'9 BMI 18 is 122 pounds. If models.com guidelines are accurate, that is definitely shifting the floor significantly up. Are all 5'9 models under BMI 18 anorexic though? I don't think so, right? It seems to me that is a question for a doctor. BMI is not a precision tool for if a weight is unhealthy for a particular individual, over or under, especially when we are talking a couple pounds difference.
The French government obviously has a right to regulate an industry that is damaging the health of employees and consumers, but I feel like this might be on the heavy handed side compared to some other potential options.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:05 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Although it is easy to know that the wilful use underweight models is harmful to women, it is hard to know that a law will solve the problem.
posted by Thing at 5:06 PM on April 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Thing at 5:06 PM on April 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
it is hard to know that a law will solve the problem
It doesn't have to solve it, it just has to have a net positive impact.
posted by fatbird at 5:10 PM on April 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
It doesn't have to solve it, it just has to have a net positive impact.
posted by fatbird at 5:10 PM on April 3, 2015 [10 favorites]
I mean, it's good, but it's bass-ackwards. They should ban employers from discriminating based on body weight, not force them to do it.
posted by Sys Rq at 5:10 PM on April 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Sys Rq at 5:10 PM on April 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
From my perspective, most couture is designed for very tall prepubescent boys. I wish most designers would just admit they hate women, with their messy boobs and hips throwing off the line.
That said, I completely understand what France is trying to do, and applaud the concept of trying to breathe sanity into the pit of despair, but legislation seems heavy handed.
posted by dejah420 at 5:13 PM on April 3, 2015 [17 favorites]
That said, I completely understand what France is trying to do, and applaud the concept of trying to breathe sanity into the pit of despair, but legislation seems heavy handed.
posted by dejah420 at 5:13 PM on April 3, 2015 [17 favorites]
I think this law could be a lot smarter than it is, even if the intentions are good. For example, they could make it a crime to pressure employees to lose weight by unhealthy means, or to fire someone for gaining weight (up to a certain point). This is all vague and hard to enforce, but it doesn't seem any vaguer than US "hostile work environment" laws. It makes more sense than making it straight-up illegal to employ anyone whose body is a certain shape.
Realistically, though, if you take all models under the minimum weight limit, only a tiny number of them are going to actually be within their personal healthy weight. And I imagine there is almost no one with a BMI of 18 who is constitutionally incapable of gaining like 10 pounds.
posted by vogon_poet at 5:34 PM on April 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
Realistically, though, if you take all models under the minimum weight limit, only a tiny number of them are going to actually be within their personal healthy weight. And I imagine there is almost no one with a BMI of 18 who is constitutionally incapable of gaining like 10 pounds.
posted by vogon_poet at 5:34 PM on April 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
I'm confused by the telegraph calling this a "surprise" law. I've personally, even without being invested in the issue, been hearing about the law coming for a couple of weeks, and the conversation about how to address the issue of (practically) requiring underweight models has been going on for years.
Better to frame it as a horrible decision, I suppose.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:41 PM on April 3, 2015
Better to frame it as a horrible decision, I suppose.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:41 PM on April 3, 2015
Women's bodies are policed again.
Maybe not so much "policed" as "gendarmed".
I suppose this is unfair to the small percentage of people who are naturally very thin, and maybe some kind of quota ("only 20% of models per show under BMI of whatever") might have been a little better, but I'm not exactly up in arms about it. High fashion mostly seems like a form of conspicuous consumption to me, so I find it hard to care that much about the industry in the first place. If it makes things better for the young people who get drawn into that line of work, good, and if not, try again.
posted by uosuaq at 5:42 PM on April 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
Maybe not so much "policed" as "gendarmed".
I suppose this is unfair to the small percentage of people who are naturally very thin, and maybe some kind of quota ("only 20% of models per show under BMI of whatever") might have been a little better, but I'm not exactly up in arms about it. High fashion mostly seems like a form of conspicuous consumption to me, so I find it hard to care that much about the industry in the first place. If it makes things better for the young people who get drawn into that line of work, good, and if not, try again.
posted by uosuaq at 5:42 PM on April 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is not a new idea by any means it's just the first time it's been implemented by the state. I think there was some effort by the ASA to regulate the appearance of models in advertising in Britain but don't think much came of it.
posted by fiercekitten at 5:48 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by fiercekitten at 5:48 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
It would be better to require an independent group of rotating doctors to inspect models, and recommend and provide treatment to individuals.
posted by gryftir at 5:50 PM on April 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by gryftir at 5:50 PM on April 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
I understand the body policing argument, but it also feels like an enemy of the good is the perfect thing. This seems like one of the few solutions that might impart change even if it's a bit hamfisted and like... Do you have a better suggestion that they couldnt just ignore?
posted by emptythought at 5:52 PM on April 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by emptythought at 5:52 PM on April 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
For example, they could make it a crime to pressure employees to lose weight by unhealthy means, or to fire someone for gaining weight (up to a certain point).They don't have to do either of those things, though. If only extremely-thin models get booked for gigs, then the agencies don't have to pressure models or fire them for gaining weight. The models will realize that the only way to get work is to maintain a very low weight, and nobody would argue that agencies should be required to represent models who never get hired.
I don't particularly love this law, but I don't really know what to do about the fact that our society hates women and deals with that fact by pathologizing typical women's bodies.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:54 PM on April 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
Trying to think about how to legislate in a way that would actually be effective... I think gryftir's idea is the best I can imagine for this. I feel like the real effect of this law is just going to me that the models' bodies are policed more than they were before, now in a catch-22 scenario, and roughly 100x as much effort will go into cheating the system as into actually complying with it.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:55 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Navelgazer at 5:55 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
(Just based on my experience with coxswains, anyway, which is the only comparable situation I can picture here.)
posted by Navelgazer at 5:56 PM on April 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 5:56 PM on April 3, 2015 [3 favorites]
It would be better to require an independent group of rotating doctors to inspect models, and recommend and provide treatment to individuals.
Absolutely. Empower people to make and defend their own decisions against a system that seeks to manipulate, exploit and oppress them. Do not further reduce their agency.
posted by howfar at 5:59 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Absolutely. Empower people to make and defend their own decisions against a system that seeks to manipulate, exploit and oppress them. Do not further reduce their agency.
posted by howfar at 5:59 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
A lot of anorexics are going to refuse treatment and deny they have a problem, and so I don't think that "inspecting" models and recommending treatment is necessarily going to do a whole lot.
I actually think that the pro-ana website thing is also a huge can of worms. Who decides where the boundary is between pro-ana and normal diet advice?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:04 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
I actually think that the pro-ana website thing is also a huge can of worms. Who decides where the boundary is between pro-ana and normal diet advice?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:04 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you don't believe corporations act because of the decisions of the people that own them, how do you explain them? What kinds of non-humans are running the show? Are those are goblins drawing paychecks and contributing to their 401k?
Seriously. "Corporations are people," while an inelegant statement, describes reality. Usually, though, you find that rankling against this reality is really code for, "I don't like big corporations because they're scary."
But corporations are small, too. The plumber that came to fix my leaking pipes the other day? Well, his name was Steve, but I made the check out to "Steve's Plumbing, LLC," so I guess that means Steve was a goddamn leprechaun.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:09 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Seriously. "Corporations are people," while an inelegant statement, describes reality. Usually, though, you find that rankling against this reality is really code for, "I don't like big corporations because they're scary."
But corporations are small, too. The plumber that came to fix my leaking pipes the other day? Well, his name was Steve, but I made the check out to "Steve's Plumbing, LLC," so I guess that means Steve was a goddamn leprechaun.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:09 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
If you don't believe corporations act because of the decisions of the people that own them, how do you explain them?
That's not what corporate personality means.
posted by howfar at 6:11 PM on April 3, 2015 [16 favorites]
That's not what corporate personality means.
posted by howfar at 6:11 PM on April 3, 2015 [16 favorites]
This isn't about "who gets to be a model". It's about the fact that an entire industry promotes a single body type as being the default one for their clothing. The original one. The bodies that clothes are worn on before those styles are seen anywhere else is this body. If this "bans" skinny women from modelling, then the current practice unfairly discriminates against women who are just as attractive but not that same weight. The difference is that this weight is not a healthy one for the fashion industry to be using as a default, and that default eventually influences basically every person in the Western world who doesn't make their own clothes. Sometimes regulations do cause people to lose jobs, but we accept that as okay if the regulation is important enough.
It doesn't mean that no woman can ever be healthy at that weight, it means that the industry cannot use those women for this particular purpose. Some doctors can operate with very little sleep and easily exceed the regulation number of working hours for residency programs. But many can't, and limiting those hours makes people safer on the whole, even if it means Dr. Genius spends less time working miracles on patients. The exception does not disprove the need for regulation.
posted by Sequence at 6:35 PM on April 3, 2015 [49 favorites]
It doesn't mean that no woman can ever be healthy at that weight, it means that the industry cannot use those women for this particular purpose. Some doctors can operate with very little sleep and easily exceed the regulation number of working hours for residency programs. But many can't, and limiting those hours makes people safer on the whole, even if it means Dr. Genius spends less time working miracles on patients. The exception does not disprove the need for regulation.
posted by Sequence at 6:35 PM on April 3, 2015 [49 favorites]
I do remember her pointing at herself, spinning around, going "They think I need to lose weight?" She was a tall twig, an incomprehensibly low level of normal body fat for a CHILD... It just blew my mind that someone looked at her and thought she wasn't skinny enough.
You know, I have heard many, many, many stories like this out of fashion and modeling. I don't think it's really about weight. I think it's a not particularly sophisticated means of putting these women on edge. "Negging," if you will let me borrow a term. This makes these women feel a little or a lot of insecurity. Then they are more ripe for exploitation: low pay, lack of agency in which jobs to accept or turn down, encouragement to do gigs that they don't want to do, get naked, take drugs with "influential" dudes with cameras, etc..
posted by amanda at 6:41 PM on April 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
You know, I have heard many, many, many stories like this out of fashion and modeling. I don't think it's really about weight. I think it's a not particularly sophisticated means of putting these women on edge. "Negging," if you will let me borrow a term. This makes these women feel a little or a lot of insecurity. Then they are more ripe for exploitation: low pay, lack of agency in which jobs to accept or turn down, encouragement to do gigs that they don't want to do, get naked, take drugs with "influential" dudes with cameras, etc..
posted by amanda at 6:41 PM on April 3, 2015 [15 favorites]
I'm reminded of Australia's ban on small breasted adult models. Road to hell, and all that.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:01 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 7:01 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
If the solution is going to be regulation (and there are many good arguments for why it shouldn't be), I'd prefer the nudge approach. Institute a "skinny tax" on the fashion industry. You can make your models as thin and photoshopped as you want, but x% of your profits goes to support organizations that fight anorexia. Companies that don't use dangerously underweight models or photoshopped body shapes are exempted.
posted by dephlogisticated at 7:02 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by dephlogisticated at 7:02 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
As someone who's struggled with an eating disorder for a number of years now, part of me gets upset by this action because, on the one hand, I see the good intentions of it? But on the other, it treats the disease as if it's a conscious choice - it's not. It's a mental illness. The fashion industry's use of skinny models isn't what implants an actual mental illness into a person's mind (although, don't get me wrong, it capitalizes on the issue and also catalyzes it in several horrific ways).
I guess what I'm trying to say here is, I think there are far better (albeit currently unidentified) ways of combatting the issue - like, oh, I don't know, enacting fines on the corners of society (not just industry) that cause girls to feel the need to be thin in order to please others and fulfill their own lives...
posted by ourt at 7:10 PM on April 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
I guess what I'm trying to say here is, I think there are far better (albeit currently unidentified) ways of combatting the issue - like, oh, I don't know, enacting fines on the corners of society (not just industry) that cause girls to feel the need to be thin in order to please others and fulfill their own lives...
posted by ourt at 7:10 PM on April 3, 2015 [4 favorites]
On a similar note, BMI isn't what indicates whether or not a "super-skinny" person has an eating disorder -- their thoughts, actions, and actual mindset do.
posted by ourt at 7:16 PM on April 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by ourt at 7:16 PM on April 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
We should hi-light that runway photos rank pretty low in influence over people's self-perceptions, eating habits, etc. relative to studio photos, movie images, etc. Imho, they could've said "photoshopped work with over a million viewers" should not portray an ideal of being unhealthily skinny.
"Is your model actually anorexic? No worries. We'll add a few pounds in photoshop to make her look healthy."
posted by jeffburdges at 7:31 PM on April 3, 2015
"Is your model actually anorexic? No worries. We'll add a few pounds in photoshop to make her look healthy."
posted by jeffburdges at 7:31 PM on April 3, 2015
Women's bodies are policed again.
The entire fashion industry is "policing women's bodies." I mean, that's what it is for.
"Here is what a woman's body should look like, and what clothes it should be dressed in," is actually what women's and fashion magazines say. Then they add articles to help those women (99%) who don't look like that, with makeup, dieting and fashion tips, so they can pretend to look like that.
The problem to me with this law is that it doesn't go far enough, though I realize that is a radical opinion that will go nowhere with most people. But the beauty industry, every model-abusing, eating-disorder-contributing, environment-degrading, patriarchy-fellating, class-snobbery-promoting bit of it, is just a giant mind-fuck directed at women and I would gladly see it sink into the mud.
I know why it won't, you understand, because participation in it is compulsory for virtually all of us. But it's a mind-fuck all the same.
posted by emjaybee at 7:37 PM on April 3, 2015 [51 favorites]
The entire fashion industry is "policing women's bodies." I mean, that's what it is for.
"Here is what a woman's body should look like, and what clothes it should be dressed in," is actually what women's and fashion magazines say. Then they add articles to help those women (99%) who don't look like that, with makeup, dieting and fashion tips, so they can pretend to look like that.
The problem to me with this law is that it doesn't go far enough, though I realize that is a radical opinion that will go nowhere with most people. But the beauty industry, every model-abusing, eating-disorder-contributing, environment-degrading, patriarchy-fellating, class-snobbery-promoting bit of it, is just a giant mind-fuck directed at women and I would gladly see it sink into the mud.
I know why it won't, you understand, because participation in it is compulsory for virtually all of us. But it's a mind-fuck all the same.
posted by emjaybee at 7:37 PM on April 3, 2015 [51 favorites]
BMI isn't what indicates whether or not a "super-skinny" person has an eating disorder -- their thoughts, actions, and actual mindset do.
By that logic, then not all people who are very thin suffer from a mental illness, so there's no a priori assumption that mental illness is being criminalized. If you think of modeling as an athletic pursuit, then there's no reason why you can't regulate or set standards for performance. I'm confident there are a number of models who see weight management like any other athlete, and if there were differing standards, then they would probably be happy to adjust their regime accordingly, and have ice cream once in a while. There's a non-zero number of people who can't gain weight by any means, but I wonder if they are at the very bottom band of the BMI scale this regulation establishes.
If you frame it simply as workplace safety, I don't know why it has to be castigated as 'policing women.' Sure, some of the models working today maintain their fighting weight absent extraordinary means, just as some people working at UPS can lift more than 70lbs all day long without a struggle. But if there is evidence that a significant number of your workforce (and I'm willing to bet it probably creeps well north of the majority) routinely engage in unhealthy behavior, then governmental restriction seems eminently reasonable.
posted by 99_ at 7:44 PM on April 3, 2015 [23 favorites]
By that logic, then not all people who are very thin suffer from a mental illness, so there's no a priori assumption that mental illness is being criminalized. If you think of modeling as an athletic pursuit, then there's no reason why you can't regulate or set standards for performance. I'm confident there are a number of models who see weight management like any other athlete, and if there were differing standards, then they would probably be happy to adjust their regime accordingly, and have ice cream once in a while. There's a non-zero number of people who can't gain weight by any means, but I wonder if they are at the very bottom band of the BMI scale this regulation establishes.
If you frame it simply as workplace safety, I don't know why it has to be castigated as 'policing women.' Sure, some of the models working today maintain their fighting weight absent extraordinary means, just as some people working at UPS can lift more than 70lbs all day long without a struggle. But if there is evidence that a significant number of your workforce (and I'm willing to bet it probably creeps well north of the majority) routinely engage in unhealthy behavior, then governmental restriction seems eminently reasonable.
posted by 99_ at 7:44 PM on April 3, 2015 [23 favorites]
There are just so many problems on all sides of this. Yes, print advertising and other mass-market material is far more influential towards the effect (eating disorders) that this is designed to combat. I imagine the issue there, however, is that France has a lot of difficulty legislating the content of advertising from Milan, Tokyo, New York and London, especially in the modern age, than it does in specifying regulations for runway shows happening physically in Paris. This is something they can exert at least some degree of control over, though this law still looks like a poor way to manage it.
If they're serious about the issue (and, being American, I reflexively doubt any government's sincere commitment to anything aside from kick-backs to contributors and pandering to religious bases) they need a functional industry oversight committee, with teeth, who can keep an eye on these practices. I like the idea of an industry-tax, earmarked for programs helping people with easting disorders, with incremental breaks for members of the industry promoting actually representative body-types, but that's just an extremely rough-draft.
As mentioned in the very first comment in this thread, this looks like it will just lead to more unhealthy behavior thrusted upon the models in order to both meet the demands of the law and the industry in destructive ways. Put some elbow-grease into it, and better solutions can be devised pretty quickly, I'd think.
That said, from an ignorant outsider's perspective, where the Fashion industry seems like such a cornerstone of French economy and culture, the fact that the French government is making these regulations at all is probably a sign of good things. I just wish the regulation were better.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:12 PM on April 3, 2015
If they're serious about the issue (and, being American, I reflexively doubt any government's sincere commitment to anything aside from kick-backs to contributors and pandering to religious bases) they need a functional industry oversight committee, with teeth, who can keep an eye on these practices. I like the idea of an industry-tax, earmarked for programs helping people with easting disorders, with incremental breaks for members of the industry promoting actually representative body-types, but that's just an extremely rough-draft.
As mentioned in the very first comment in this thread, this looks like it will just lead to more unhealthy behavior thrusted upon the models in order to both meet the demands of the law and the industry in destructive ways. Put some elbow-grease into it, and better solutions can be devised pretty quickly, I'd think.
That said, from an ignorant outsider's perspective, where the Fashion industry seems like such a cornerstone of French economy and culture, the fact that the French government is making these regulations at all is probably a sign of good things. I just wish the regulation were better.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:12 PM on April 3, 2015
Wow, the vitriol and shock and anger in this thread are really, really surprising me. I'm a woman and I think this is great, although far from perfect. As life works now, not everyone can be a model; it's not like every woman was previously able to be a model and now some are barred from the profession. Of the women who are currently models, many of them are forced into unhealthy eating patterns to keep their jobs. Yes, some women are naturally very thin but in this industry a great many are also pressured to be thinner than is healthy for their bodies. From my perspective, this law isn't saying "some women's bodies are not okay", it's saying "the standard of beauty the fashion industry is propagating is unhealthy and needs to change to something closer to healthy and attainable for the majority of women".
Seriously, I am really, really surprised. This doesn't seem like "body policing", this seems like "trying to swing the pendulum back towards healthy". The vitriol against this is also making me a little uncomfortable; this feels, to me, like a positive step towards improving health and representation for women and the anger about this seems kind of odd. If the people arguing against this are very thing women who feel that their bodies are being policed I apologize but I do feel like this affects me and I'm pleased about it. I also know women (including a female MeFite with whom I am chatting about this) who have some objections to this that are very well reasoned. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'm very open to these arguments, but a lot of this thread feels like men outraged about what they are considering "body policing" without recognizing that bodies are already policed in modelling and this is an attempt to undo some of that harm.
This clearly does not apply to everyone in the thread; if you are not one of the people I am addressing with this comment, awesome! Recognize that and pat yourself on the back instead of getting mad at me for making it please.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:16 PM on April 3, 2015 [73 favorites]
Seriously, I am really, really surprised. This doesn't seem like "body policing", this seems like "trying to swing the pendulum back towards healthy". The vitriol against this is also making me a little uncomfortable; this feels, to me, like a positive step towards improving health and representation for women and the anger about this seems kind of odd. If the people arguing against this are very thing women who feel that their bodies are being policed I apologize but I do feel like this affects me and I'm pleased about it. I also know women (including a female MeFite with whom I am chatting about this) who have some objections to this that are very well reasoned. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'm very open to these arguments, but a lot of this thread feels like men outraged about what they are considering "body policing" without recognizing that bodies are already policed in modelling and this is an attempt to undo some of that harm.
This clearly does not apply to everyone in the thread; if you are not one of the people I am addressing with this comment, awesome! Recognize that and pat yourself on the back instead of getting mad at me for making it please.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:16 PM on April 3, 2015 [73 favorites]
I'm reminded of Australia's ban on small breasted adult models. Road to hell, and all that
I think this is a pretty crappy comparison.
Really? Like, having an unrealistic standard that's unhealthy for a lot of people to achieve is the same as or in any way equivalent to "small breasted women look too much like children?". Does that really sound like a great road to travel?
posted by emptythought at 8:25 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think this is a pretty crappy comparison.
Really? Like, having an unrealistic standard that's unhealthy for a lot of people to achieve is the same as or in any way equivalent to "small breasted women look too much like children?". Does that really sound like a great road to travel?
posted by emptythought at 8:25 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, Australia's small-breast-ban law is a lot worse and creepier by several margins, I think. Again, I think this idea has its heart in the right place and that workable rules to combat ridiculous body standards are a good thing. I'm just worried that this particular one, while perhaps a decent first step, will have limited effect towards its intended goal and a lot of effect in making things worse for already-exploited models in putting the onus on them to be one BMI when the government is checking and another for showtime.
posted by Navelgazer at 8:30 PM on April 3, 2015
posted by Navelgazer at 8:30 PM on April 3, 2015
I actually think that the pro-ana website thing is also a huge can of worms. Who decides where the boundary is between pro-ana and normal diet advice?
Scientists specializing in human metabolism as well as nutritionists and psychologists with clinical experience working off their studies. HTH.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:02 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Scientists specializing in human metabolism as well as nutritionists and psychologists with clinical experience working off their studies. HTH.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:02 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Let us enquire into this alleged small-breast ban.
posted by Wolof at 9:11 PM on April 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by Wolof at 9:11 PM on April 3, 2015 [12 favorites]
Mrs. Pterodactyl: this law isn't saying "some women's bodies are not okay", it's saying "the standard of beauty the fashion industry is propagating is unhealthy and needs to change to something closer to healthy and attainable for the majority of women".
Exactly. It's an attempt to eliminate the idea that only skinny women are attractive and fashionable. I'm astonished that so many folks here think this is a bad thing.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:13 PM on April 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
Exactly. It's an attempt to eliminate the idea that only skinny women are attractive and fashionable. I'm astonished that so many folks here think this is a bad thing.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:13 PM on April 3, 2015 [9 favorites]
Scientists specializing in human metabolism as well as nutritionists and psychologists with clinical experience working off their studies. HTH.It sure is condescending, but no, it doesn't help. There's no consensus among those people about what constitutes healthy eating advice and what's dangerously extreme. It's also pretty clear that advice that is healthy for one person might be unhealthy for another. People give dieting advice on metafilter fairly often that would be really dangerous for me, as someone in recovery from an eating disorder. People say things on this website all the time that are triggering for me. So do we arrest everyone here who recommends intermittent fasting or tells people to eat a particular, very-low number of calories every day?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:19 PM on April 3, 2015 [5 favorites]
Wolof: thanks for the clarification! The comparison is even less apt, then.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:26 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Navelgazer at 9:26 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'm pretty much firmly in agreement with Ms. Pterodactyl here, although personally I'm not *that* surprised that the off the hip response was a line of the edgier male posters all jumping in with somewhat #maekuthink THIS IS JUST MORE BODY POLICING comments.
posted by ominous_paws at 10:14 PM on April 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by ominous_paws at 10:14 PM on April 3, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yeah edgy male comments are not what I expected when I opened this thread, honestly. More power to you (well, no, maybe equitable power to you) if you are a dude with opinions but I was just surprised by the skew.
I think this is a good thing. The point seems to be that even if you are naturally very skinny, this industry tells you to lose weight. And regulating the industry so that's not OK anymore seems alright to me. I guess we've tired out our exhaustion about the fact that normal sized women can't be models. So it's easier to get angry at the suggestion of "body policing." It's definitely complicated, but I'm happier with the idea of doing something about it.
posted by stoneandstar at 10:35 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think this is a good thing. The point seems to be that even if you are naturally very skinny, this industry tells you to lose weight. And regulating the industry so that's not OK anymore seems alright to me. I guess we've tired out our exhaustion about the fact that normal sized women can't be models. So it's easier to get angry at the suggestion of "body policing." It's definitely complicated, but I'm happier with the idea of doing something about it.
posted by stoneandstar at 10:35 PM on April 3, 2015 [2 favorites]
Framing this as "policing women's bodies" is logically equivalent to saying that forcing WalMart to pay a living wage is denying their employees the right to work. These laws regulate industries not individuals. The industries are the enemies, here.
Fashion is an industry that exploits women (and men), both as employees and as customers. It has no other purpose, and it does not survive unless it presents an image of womanhood (or manhood) that is completely unattainable (once your customers obtain your ideal, they stop buying, right?) The fashion industry exists for one reason only: to appeal to peoples' insecurities to manipulate them into buying things. It doesn't matter whether the individual models are healthy, what matters is that they present an image that would profoundly unhealthy for most people, cultivate their anxiety and control their buying habits.
Maybe the law is discriminatory in some way, but the industry it regulates is operationalized discrimination. If there's any reason to oppose it, it's because it would probably be impossible to enforce at all, let alone fairly.
posted by klanawa at 11:08 PM on April 3, 2015 [21 favorites]
Fashion is an industry that exploits women (and men), both as employees and as customers. It has no other purpose, and it does not survive unless it presents an image of womanhood (or manhood) that is completely unattainable (once your customers obtain your ideal, they stop buying, right?) The fashion industry exists for one reason only: to appeal to peoples' insecurities to manipulate them into buying things. It doesn't matter whether the individual models are healthy, what matters is that they present an image that would profoundly unhealthy for most people, cultivate their anxiety and control their buying habits.
Maybe the law is discriminatory in some way, but the industry it regulates is operationalized discrimination. If there's any reason to oppose it, it's because it would probably be impossible to enforce at all, let alone fairly.
posted by klanawa at 11:08 PM on April 3, 2015 [21 favorites]
I don't know if this approach will work but the fashion industry and the push for ultra skinny models is super gross. If this turns out to have stupid unintended consequences I would hope that the next version will correct those.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:54 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Dip Flash at 11:54 PM on April 3, 2015 [1 favorite]
a lot of this thread feels like men outraged about what they are considering "body policing" without recognizing that bodies are already policed in modelling and this is an attempt to undo some of that harm.
I am surprised that you see my objection as vitriolic, or feel that I don't recognise that the fashion industry is involved in body policing. But that's my fault for making assumptions about what other people's perceptions would be. I apologise for this. I am sorry not to have recognised the need for a more complex and sensitive approach to expressing myself on a complex and sensitive subject.
A number of things trouble me about this law, however, which I think stem from concerns that are common to most people holding most perspectives in this thread.
Firstly, I think that agency is important, possibly fundamental. The decisions that people make are not, in my view, as important as the fact that they are able to make them. I acknowledge that soft power from the fashion industry is a real and malign force in this respect. But it also seems to me that women are criticised and shamed for being "too skinny" sufficiently often* for it to raise concerns that it such legislation reinforces rather than opposes body policing.
In relation to the above, then, there are two problems I have with this law. One is that it literally prevents certain women from doing certain things with their own bodies (with the additional concern that this is based upon the will of a group of largely white middle-class men, creating legislation which was proposed by a white middle-class man). The second is that it reinforces the basic notion that women's bodies are objects for public consumption and judgement. I am, at least to some extent, aware of the context of this law, and I acknowledge that my assessment of this law, as a man, may very well suffer from significant lacunae, but it is my honest belief that this law exacerbates, rather than ameliorates, the underlying problem.
I will also admit to being concerned that this is happening in France. I perceive parallels with the 2010 ban on face coverings, primarily aimed at Muslim women, that make me uncomfortable. The notion that, in order to be "liberated", women must be deprived of certain choices, is something that I find troubling. In France, notions of liberalism and cultural conformity frequently go hand in hand. I think that this is a fundamentally flawed approach to the liberal and radical projects, and that it is part of the environment that has fostered both radical social disenfranchisement of minority groups and the rise of the French far-right.
This broader concern is important to me in this context precisely because of the need for radical approaches to the genuine tyranny of misogyny represented by the fashion industry. We are all aware that the fact that some action is desperately needed does not mean that all action is useful; I strongly tend to the view that this action is not just not useful but actively counterproductive, because it fosters an environment in which women's bodies are even more closely examined, assessed and either approved or found wanting.
I recognise your view that this law isn't saying that "some women's bodies are not OK", but I am personally, finding it hard to parse it in those terms. It seems to me that some people will be told that they are not fit to work based upon a judgement made about their body as an object. That seems like a "not OK" judgement.
I apologise if my tone at any point seems vitriolic. It is not intended as such. My concerns are genuine, and if I am wrong (always a real possibility) I am more interested in working out how to correct that than in defending my position.
* The "celebrity magazine" aisle in particular springs to mind.
posted by howfar at 11:57 PM on April 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
I am surprised that you see my objection as vitriolic, or feel that I don't recognise that the fashion industry is involved in body policing. But that's my fault for making assumptions about what other people's perceptions would be. I apologise for this. I am sorry not to have recognised the need for a more complex and sensitive approach to expressing myself on a complex and sensitive subject.
A number of things trouble me about this law, however, which I think stem from concerns that are common to most people holding most perspectives in this thread.
Firstly, I think that agency is important, possibly fundamental. The decisions that people make are not, in my view, as important as the fact that they are able to make them. I acknowledge that soft power from the fashion industry is a real and malign force in this respect. But it also seems to me that women are criticised and shamed for being "too skinny" sufficiently often* for it to raise concerns that it such legislation reinforces rather than opposes body policing.
In relation to the above, then, there are two problems I have with this law. One is that it literally prevents certain women from doing certain things with their own bodies (with the additional concern that this is based upon the will of a group of largely white middle-class men, creating legislation which was proposed by a white middle-class man). The second is that it reinforces the basic notion that women's bodies are objects for public consumption and judgement. I am, at least to some extent, aware of the context of this law, and I acknowledge that my assessment of this law, as a man, may very well suffer from significant lacunae, but it is my honest belief that this law exacerbates, rather than ameliorates, the underlying problem.
I will also admit to being concerned that this is happening in France. I perceive parallels with the 2010 ban on face coverings, primarily aimed at Muslim women, that make me uncomfortable. The notion that, in order to be "liberated", women must be deprived of certain choices, is something that I find troubling. In France, notions of liberalism and cultural conformity frequently go hand in hand. I think that this is a fundamentally flawed approach to the liberal and radical projects, and that it is part of the environment that has fostered both radical social disenfranchisement of minority groups and the rise of the French far-right.
This broader concern is important to me in this context precisely because of the need for radical approaches to the genuine tyranny of misogyny represented by the fashion industry. We are all aware that the fact that some action is desperately needed does not mean that all action is useful; I strongly tend to the view that this action is not just not useful but actively counterproductive, because it fosters an environment in which women's bodies are even more closely examined, assessed and either approved or found wanting.
I recognise your view that this law isn't saying that "some women's bodies are not OK", but I am personally, finding it hard to parse it in those terms. It seems to me that some people will be told that they are not fit to work based upon a judgement made about their body as an object. That seems like a "not OK" judgement.
I apologise if my tone at any point seems vitriolic. It is not intended as such. My concerns are genuine, and if I am wrong (always a real possibility) I am more interested in working out how to correct that than in defending my position.
* The "celebrity magazine" aisle in particular springs to mind.
posted by howfar at 11:57 PM on April 3, 2015 [6 favorites]
In relation to the above, then, there are two problems I have with this law. One is that it literally prevents certain women from doing certain things with their own bodies (with the additional concern that this is based upon the will of a group of largely white middle-class men, creating legislation which was proposed by a white middle-class man).
This is almost literally the same argument, referenced above, that you're preventing people from making choices about how much money they want to charge for their labor by establishing minimum wage laws. And there's the same problem with it: the models as individuals do not have anywhere near the power that the fashion industry as an industry has. The "choices" are "if you want to work, you will fit into the clothes provided, which are cut to only fit underweight teenagers, and you will do whatever you have to do to make that happen, or you can go wait tables." That's not agency. Agency would exist if you could choose to be a size-0 model and you could choose to be a size-6 model and those things would net approximately the same pay and opportunities. They don't.
posted by Sequence at 12:18 AM on April 4, 2015 [24 favorites]
This is almost literally the same argument, referenced above, that you're preventing people from making choices about how much money they want to charge for their labor by establishing minimum wage laws. And there's the same problem with it: the models as individuals do not have anywhere near the power that the fashion industry as an industry has. The "choices" are "if you want to work, you will fit into the clothes provided, which are cut to only fit underweight teenagers, and you will do whatever you have to do to make that happen, or you can go wait tables." That's not agency. Agency would exist if you could choose to be a size-0 model and you could choose to be a size-6 model and those things would net approximately the same pay and opportunities. They don't.
posted by Sequence at 12:18 AM on April 4, 2015 [24 favorites]
Fashion is an industry that exploits women (and men), both as employees and as customers. It has no other purpose
I agree with what you said about the ills of the industry, but I would point out that it is also an industry that enables a very important and human version of artistic and personal expression. It's driven by money like every industry, but the art of fashion it is also a valuable purpose. It just needs to be done with less harm to the people who consume and model that art.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:35 AM on April 4, 2015 [7 favorites]
I agree with what you said about the ills of the industry, but I would point out that it is also an industry that enables a very important and human version of artistic and personal expression. It's driven by money like every industry, but the art of fashion it is also a valuable purpose. It just needs to be done with less harm to the people who consume and model that art.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:35 AM on April 4, 2015 [7 favorites]
(Oh, but it is also problematic that people are socially pressured/forced to participate in consuming that art, that part of it is bad bad bad. Maybe that was part of your point and I missed it.)
posted by Drinky Die at 12:39 AM on April 4, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 12:39 AM on April 4, 2015
This is almost literally the same argument, referenced above, that you're preventing people from making choices about how much money they want to charge for their labor by establishing minimum wage laws. And there's the same problem with it: the models as individuals do not have anywhere near the power that the fashion industry as an industry has.
I think this is definitely a relevant argument. Firstly, I think it's worth stating that I regard minimum wage laws as a currently necessary evil, rather than a good solution. I think this kind of regulation probably has to be justified on a case by case basis.
Having said that, maybe a better parallel, and a stronger defence, of this law, would be workplace safety regulations. We don't feel it a deprivation of liberty to be told that we must wear a hard hat on a building site, for example. I have quite a lot of sympathy for this worker protection interpretation.
However, I suppose my underlying concern is that, while safety and minimum wage laws are designed primarily to protect workers, these laws seem primarily designed to protect consumers. Hence they seem more objectifying in both impact and intent.
The "choices" are "if you want to work, you will fit into the clothes provided, which are cut to only fit underweight teenagers, and you will do whatever you have to do to make that happen, or you can go wait tables."
I absolutely agree that the fashion industry deprives women working in it of agency. But saying that women must now have a BMI of precisely 18 (which seems likely to be the result here) does not seem to me to increase that agency, because it does not address the fundamental power imbalance in the industry. And the fact that agency is profoundly limited does not, to my mind, necessarily imply that whatever is left should not be protected if at all possible.
posted by howfar at 1:05 AM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think this is definitely a relevant argument. Firstly, I think it's worth stating that I regard minimum wage laws as a currently necessary evil, rather than a good solution. I think this kind of regulation probably has to be justified on a case by case basis.
Having said that, maybe a better parallel, and a stronger defence, of this law, would be workplace safety regulations. We don't feel it a deprivation of liberty to be told that we must wear a hard hat on a building site, for example. I have quite a lot of sympathy for this worker protection interpretation.
However, I suppose my underlying concern is that, while safety and minimum wage laws are designed primarily to protect workers, these laws seem primarily designed to protect consumers. Hence they seem more objectifying in both impact and intent.
The "choices" are "if you want to work, you will fit into the clothes provided, which are cut to only fit underweight teenagers, and you will do whatever you have to do to make that happen, or you can go wait tables."
I absolutely agree that the fashion industry deprives women working in it of agency. But saying that women must now have a BMI of precisely 18 (which seems likely to be the result here) does not seem to me to increase that agency, because it does not address the fundamental power imbalance in the industry. And the fact that agency is profoundly limited does not, to my mind, necessarily imply that whatever is left should not be protected if at all possible.
posted by howfar at 1:05 AM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Models really have gotten much much thinner in the last 20 years, though. In my 20s I was very skinny, skinnier than many models, who were often only a size or two smaller than I am now (slim enough with an excess of maybe 7 vanity pounds) - and people used to complain about that! When Kate Moss hit the scene I was glad, but it turned out to be a watershed and the people complaining about the 'waif' look turned out to be right.
There's something malevolently nasty behind the trend that brought us to the point of having extremely skinny models be the norm. I see no perfect way to address it, but I suppose this way is worth a try.
posted by tel3path at 2:13 AM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's something malevolently nasty behind the trend that brought us to the point of having extremely skinny models be the norm. I see no perfect way to address it, but I suppose this way is worth a try.
posted by tel3path at 2:13 AM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
MeFi seriously disappoints me every time France comes up. Every single time. (And with regards to other, non-US countries as well. France is the one I know best, so it's more evident to me personally.)
The language of every single one of the FPP articles is a mix of jarring buzzwords ("criminal offence!") and then imprecision regarding the actual laws. In other words. You don't know what's in the law, and that's normal, you aren't being told what it is, you're just being told to be outraged and, predictably, you are. Without looking elsewhere. Without checking any French references. Not a single references in this entire thread has quoted anything from France.
I have no idea what this "anorexia crackdown" is because the first I've heard of it is today, on MeFi. Anyone who hasn't yet recognized me: I live in France, have for 17 years now. Am French.
I had to spend a half an hour searching for this "law". It's actually two amendments to a larger health law. And finally, what I found is not at all shocking, unless there's now going to be shock that doctors "police" bodies.
A medical doctor wrote the amendments. Along with women politicians, feminist activists, and other doctors (some of whom are women). It will require a certificat médical that, among other things, will need to include the model's BMI. The BMI minimum has not been defined, all the theorizing about 18 is just that: theorizing. This is because they recognize there are issues with it.
Furthermore. Certificats médicaux are already required for doing any organized sport in France. I had to get one for Tai Chi. Also had to get one for joining a corporate gym. Were I to join a cycling club, I would need one for that too. A certificat médical is given after a checkup specific to the sport(s) you want to practice, saying "yes, this person presents no risk for the sport involved." Say you want to scuba dive. You'll need to get your ears checked. Et cetera and so forth.
Those of you who compared modelling to a sport are thus on the right track: that's exactly how they're approaching it. They want to ensure that these women are indeed healthy and that modelling presents no health risk to them.
Gyms, sports instructors, etc. who give courses to people without medical certificates are also punishable by law. FWIW.
posted by fraula at 4:10 AM on April 4, 2015 [86 favorites]
The language of every single one of the FPP articles is a mix of jarring buzzwords ("criminal offence!") and then imprecision regarding the actual laws. In other words. You don't know what's in the law, and that's normal, you aren't being told what it is, you're just being told to be outraged and, predictably, you are. Without looking elsewhere. Without checking any French references. Not a single references in this entire thread has quoted anything from France.
I have no idea what this "anorexia crackdown" is because the first I've heard of it is today, on MeFi. Anyone who hasn't yet recognized me: I live in France, have for 17 years now. Am French.
I had to spend a half an hour searching for this "law". It's actually two amendments to a larger health law. And finally, what I found is not at all shocking, unless there's now going to be shock that doctors "police" bodies.
A medical doctor wrote the amendments. Along with women politicians, feminist activists, and other doctors (some of whom are women). It will require a certificat médical that, among other things, will need to include the model's BMI. The BMI minimum has not been defined, all the theorizing about 18 is just that: theorizing. This is because they recognize there are issues with it.
Furthermore. Certificats médicaux are already required for doing any organized sport in France. I had to get one for Tai Chi. Also had to get one for joining a corporate gym. Were I to join a cycling club, I would need one for that too. A certificat médical is given after a checkup specific to the sport(s) you want to practice, saying "yes, this person presents no risk for the sport involved." Say you want to scuba dive. You'll need to get your ears checked. Et cetera and so forth.
Those of you who compared modelling to a sport are thus on the right track: that's exactly how they're approaching it. They want to ensure that these women are indeed healthy and that modelling presents no health risk to them.
Gyms, sports instructors, etc. who give courses to people without medical certificates are also punishable by law. FWIW.
posted by fraula at 4:10 AM on April 4, 2015 [86 favorites]
They want to ensure that these women are indeed healthy and that modelling presents no health risk to them.
That's not actually what your own link says. While the health minister does make reference to the need for models to take care of their health, it is only in the context of acting as a role model.
'"Je trouve que quand on est mannequin, on doit s'alimenter et prendre soin de sa santé. C'est un message important en direction des jeunes femmes, des jeunes filles qui voient en ces mannequins des modèles esthétiques", a déclaré Mme Touraine.'
Your own link also makes no reference to confirming the health of the models, merely that a doctor will confirm their BMI in the certificate.
'Olivier Véran...propose de modifier le code du travail afin de contraindre les agences à produire pour chaque mannequin un certificat médical prouvant que son IMC est supérieur à une valeur donnée.'
So I'm not sure what it is you think everyone is getting confused about. Can you expand? Are there other links which clarify these issues more than the one you've shared?
posted by howfar at 4:33 AM on April 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
That's not actually what your own link says. While the health minister does make reference to the need for models to take care of their health, it is only in the context of acting as a role model.
'"Je trouve que quand on est mannequin, on doit s'alimenter et prendre soin de sa santé. C'est un message important en direction des jeunes femmes, des jeunes filles qui voient en ces mannequins des modèles esthétiques", a déclaré Mme Touraine.'
Your own link also makes no reference to confirming the health of the models, merely that a doctor will confirm their BMI in the certificate.
'Olivier Véran...propose de modifier le code du travail afin de contraindre les agences à produire pour chaque mannequin un certificat médical prouvant que son IMC est supérieur à une valeur donnée.'
So I'm not sure what it is you think everyone is getting confused about. Can you expand? Are there other links which clarify these issues more than the one you've shared?
posted by howfar at 4:33 AM on April 4, 2015 [6 favorites]
That's fascinating, fraula. I guess my objection to that is that I don't believe that BMI is a good indicator of a person's health. You say that they realize that there are problems with BMI, which is why they haven't set the minimum BMI yet, but I don't believe that BMI can be used to determine whether someone is healthy, and it's a particularly lousy indicator of whether someone has an eating disorder. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of firing someone from her job because she has an eating disorder, which could make it even harder for people to admit they have a problem and seek treatment. Finally, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for treating modeling like a sport, rather than like a job. Are there other jobs that require medical certificates?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:09 AM on April 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:09 AM on April 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, I suppose my underlying concern is that, while safety and minimum wage laws are designed primarily to protect workers, these laws seem primarily designed to protect consumers. Hence they seem more objectifying in both impact and intent.
It seems strange to me to object to a change in law on the grounds that it objectifies models and protects consumers. Models are literal objects within the fashion industry. Their role is to be consumed by readers of fashion magazines and advertisements and it is impossible to consider the relationship in an either/or way.
I worked in the (small, local) fashion industry very briefly when I was a makeup artist. The models might have been intelligent, desiring of the work and capable of making their own decisions. But they were also aware that their job was being a prop in a photo or a walking clothes-hanger on the catwalk. And they were uniformly obsessed about their weight and their diet. I don't imagine any of them would be upset about an amendment which stipulated that their bosses couldn't effectively force them to starve to an unhealthy degree, against the threat that there was always someone skinnier out there ready to take their place. And if that's a by-product of an intent to protect their consumers - especially adolescent girls - from the notion that malnourished is aspirational then frankly that's win-win as far as I'm concerned.
posted by billiebee at 5:43 AM on April 4, 2015 [13 favorites]
It seems strange to me to object to a change in law on the grounds that it objectifies models and protects consumers. Models are literal objects within the fashion industry. Their role is to be consumed by readers of fashion magazines and advertisements and it is impossible to consider the relationship in an either/or way.
I worked in the (small, local) fashion industry very briefly when I was a makeup artist. The models might have been intelligent, desiring of the work and capable of making their own decisions. But they were also aware that their job was being a prop in a photo or a walking clothes-hanger on the catwalk. And they were uniformly obsessed about their weight and their diet. I don't imagine any of them would be upset about an amendment which stipulated that their bosses couldn't effectively force them to starve to an unhealthy degree, against the threat that there was always someone skinnier out there ready to take their place. And if that's a by-product of an intent to protect their consumers - especially adolescent girls - from the notion that malnourished is aspirational then frankly that's win-win as far as I'm concerned.
posted by billiebee at 5:43 AM on April 4, 2015 [13 favorites]
Amusingly, I reacted with "Yet, another French law the myopic Americans won't understand", like the law against religious symbols in schools and fraula's comment. I hadn't known about the Certificats médicaux myself though either.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:24 AM on April 4, 2015
posted by jeffburdges at 8:24 AM on April 4, 2015
As a naturally thin and tall man, I naturally notice tall thin women by my nature. (^_^)
And living in the NYC area, and regularly traveling to areas south of 17th and north of Houston in Manhattan, I'm dismayed at just how tall and thin some of these ladies are. They might look elegant on film and video, but in person it's shocking.
I think I read recently about the growing number of fashion shows. I can't help but think this puts even more pressure on the fashion house to produce their pieces to fit a common body type (maximizing the number of models who can wear a particular piece ensuring the piece makes it into the show). Which strikes me as an unexpected outcome in a fast paced modern world sort of way. (provided there's a shred of truth to my suspicion)
posted by xtian at 8:27 AM on April 4, 2015
And living in the NYC area, and regularly traveling to areas south of 17th and north of Houston in Manhattan, I'm dismayed at just how tall and thin some of these ladies are. They might look elegant on film and video, but in person it's shocking.
I think I read recently about the growing number of fashion shows. I can't help but think this puts even more pressure on the fashion house to produce their pieces to fit a common body type (maximizing the number of models who can wear a particular piece ensuring the piece makes it into the show). Which strikes me as an unexpected outcome in a fast paced modern world sort of way. (provided there's a shred of truth to my suspicion)
posted by xtian at 8:27 AM on April 4, 2015
Okay, off the top of my head:
First, runway models are all abnormally tall and thin. I kind of wanted to be a model when I was a teen. I was 5'9" tall. IIRC, that is towards the lower end of what is acceptable for a runway model (I think you have to be at least 5'7" tall, which is the cut off for being tall for a woman). I was also quite thin the first 17 years of my life. My thinness was "natural" in that I was not dieting or trying to be that thin (and was, in fact, mocked for it). However, it was also a known side effect of my genetic disorder, though I was not diagnosed until my thirties.
So I was unhealthily, though naturally, thin and that makes me skeptical of the statements about "some women are just naturally thin." As Helen Gurley Brown once said in one of her books: Nature can kill you. She was not real impressed with arguments that "natural" things were somehow innately and automatically superior to human intervention.
Second, I skimmed a few other articles yesterday that did not get included above. Because this law was passed yesterday, I initially only found a single article stating that the law had been passed. I initially found three articles talking about them considering this law. So it is possible that some of what I am going to say here is not contained in any of the articles I linked to. Here is what I recall:
France is not the first country to try to do something about unhealthily thin models. Spain, Italy and I think a third country all passed laws of some sort trying to address this issue. I think it is just more controversial because France is the fashion capital of the world.
France tried to institute some kind of voluntary thing in 2008 and it made no difference. The impetus for passing the law is supposedly the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in France suffering from anorexia and about 90% of them are adolescents. They are trying to cut back on some of the ever-present message that "You can never be too rich or too thin." (In fact, I tried to figure out how alter that saying to make it the title of this piece, but I couldn't figure how to make that work.)
So they tried something more conservative and it didn't accomplish much, if anything. So now they are ramping things up.
I do realize BMI is a terrible measure of health. When my husband was on recruiting duty, every year they had some annual training even and every year the insurance folks who were there told every single recruiter he was "overweight" according to civilian height and weight charts. These were guys who had to pass a PT test to stay in the military. None of them was obese, or even particularly fat. They just had more muscle than your typical office worker -- it was required of them.
On the upside, the army has an alternative test: If you can't pass weight, they tape-test you. It is somewhat common for body builders in the military to be unable to pass weight -- they weight too much even by army standards. So you measure them and determine if they are actually fat or if it is all muscle. Body builders have no problem passing the tape-test, even though often failed to within the weight guidelines.
It sounds to me like the guidelines for determining what is too thin have not been fully fleshed out. I hope that, like the American military, the French government will come up with something sensible to use here.
I personally found this encouraging. At one time, I wanted to be an image consultant and I had a lot of books about clothes. One of the most influential on me (now out of print) talked about the fact that the author worked in the fashion industry and what he ran across was that fashion was not about making women feel good about themselves. It just tortured them. Women followed trends rather than learning what enhanced their own natural features the best. I sometimes think it would be nice to start a blog talking about how women can be comfortable in their clothes -- look decent and feel good and not be tortured by it -- but I also kind of throw my hands up in despair. I doubt it would fly. Most people seem not interested in that kind of point of view. They want to look at pretty pictures, not okay pictures of someone who looks less like art but isn't simply miserable from trying to achieve that look.
So I have thought about such things for a long time and I don't know how anyone can offer a real alternative to the current fashion industry. It seems like a pretty steep uphill battle. Thus, I think trying to curb the worst stuff in the current industry is possibly as good as it gets. I was happy to see this, even though I realize it has potential downside and may be implemented in a ham-handed way and so on.
posted by Michele in California at 10:58 AM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
First, runway models are all abnormally tall and thin. I kind of wanted to be a model when I was a teen. I was 5'9" tall. IIRC, that is towards the lower end of what is acceptable for a runway model (I think you have to be at least 5'7" tall, which is the cut off for being tall for a woman). I was also quite thin the first 17 years of my life. My thinness was "natural" in that I was not dieting or trying to be that thin (and was, in fact, mocked for it). However, it was also a known side effect of my genetic disorder, though I was not diagnosed until my thirties.
So I was unhealthily, though naturally, thin and that makes me skeptical of the statements about "some women are just naturally thin." As Helen Gurley Brown once said in one of her books: Nature can kill you. She was not real impressed with arguments that "natural" things were somehow innately and automatically superior to human intervention.
Second, I skimmed a few other articles yesterday that did not get included above. Because this law was passed yesterday, I initially only found a single article stating that the law had been passed. I initially found three articles talking about them considering this law. So it is possible that some of what I am going to say here is not contained in any of the articles I linked to. Here is what I recall:
France is not the first country to try to do something about unhealthily thin models. Spain, Italy and I think a third country all passed laws of some sort trying to address this issue. I think it is just more controversial because France is the fashion capital of the world.
France tried to institute some kind of voluntary thing in 2008 and it made no difference. The impetus for passing the law is supposedly the fact that there are tens of thousands of people in France suffering from anorexia and about 90% of them are adolescents. They are trying to cut back on some of the ever-present message that "You can never be too rich or too thin." (In fact, I tried to figure out how alter that saying to make it the title of this piece, but I couldn't figure how to make that work.)
So they tried something more conservative and it didn't accomplish much, if anything. So now they are ramping things up.
I do realize BMI is a terrible measure of health. When my husband was on recruiting duty, every year they had some annual training even and every year the insurance folks who were there told every single recruiter he was "overweight" according to civilian height and weight charts. These were guys who had to pass a PT test to stay in the military. None of them was obese, or even particularly fat. They just had more muscle than your typical office worker -- it was required of them.
On the upside, the army has an alternative test: If you can't pass weight, they tape-test you. It is somewhat common for body builders in the military to be unable to pass weight -- they weight too much even by army standards. So you measure them and determine if they are actually fat or if it is all muscle. Body builders have no problem passing the tape-test, even though often failed to within the weight guidelines.
It sounds to me like the guidelines for determining what is too thin have not been fully fleshed out. I hope that, like the American military, the French government will come up with something sensible to use here.
I personally found this encouraging. At one time, I wanted to be an image consultant and I had a lot of books about clothes. One of the most influential on me (now out of print) talked about the fact that the author worked in the fashion industry and what he ran across was that fashion was not about making women feel good about themselves. It just tortured them. Women followed trends rather than learning what enhanced their own natural features the best. I sometimes think it would be nice to start a blog talking about how women can be comfortable in their clothes -- look decent and feel good and not be tortured by it -- but I also kind of throw my hands up in despair. I doubt it would fly. Most people seem not interested in that kind of point of view. They want to look at pretty pictures, not okay pictures of someone who looks less like art but isn't simply miserable from trying to achieve that look.
So I have thought about such things for a long time and I don't know how anyone can offer a real alternative to the current fashion industry. It seems like a pretty steep uphill battle. Thus, I think trying to curb the worst stuff in the current industry is possibly as good as it gets. I was happy to see this, even though I realize it has potential downside and may be implemented in a ham-handed way and so on.
posted by Michele in California at 10:58 AM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Seems to me that the correct perspective on this is that, for a complicated set of reasons, modeling is a hazardous job and therefore employers should be required to certify in some fashion that their models are healthy -- which should be in the form of periodic examination of models by physicians as a prerequisite for continuing certification of the employer (not certification of the model).
The focus shouldn't be on a BMI, but more broadly about health within the context where modeling is often unhealthy. Which would include BMI, but the physician rightly would have more latitude to consider numerous factors. The downside to this would be that certain physicians would be able to get away with being notoriously lenient and models and/or agencies would gravitate toward them if allowed to do so, defeating much of the intent. But you have that sort of problem with any similar regime and there are some ways to account for this.
The important part, however, is that the certification would be of the agencies (or other employers of models) rather than of the models themselves. It shouldn't be the case that an individual model will specifically and necessarily be able or unable to work on the basis of a single exam. Rather, it should be that an agency would need to meet some aggregate threshold as the result of these regular examinations as the requirement for certification and, if they fail certification, then the agencies would economically suffer, not the models.
Of course, depending upon an agency's policies, this might result in directly keeping a model from working at that agency. But not from all agencies, necessarily.
Even so, in the end this means fewer jobs for individual models who are less healthy. You can't avoid that because that's actually part of the point. But what you can do is to put as much onus on the employer and their policies and history as possible, and allow as much leeway for individual models as possible so that it's not really so much that the state is "policing women's bodies" as it is that the state is "policing how an employer treats its employees".
How this all relates to these French regulations, I don't know because it sounds like the linked article misrepresents it but I'm not in a position to evaluate the issue myself.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:29 AM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
The focus shouldn't be on a BMI, but more broadly about health within the context where modeling is often unhealthy. Which would include BMI, but the physician rightly would have more latitude to consider numerous factors. The downside to this would be that certain physicians would be able to get away with being notoriously lenient and models and/or agencies would gravitate toward them if allowed to do so, defeating much of the intent. But you have that sort of problem with any similar regime and there are some ways to account for this.
The important part, however, is that the certification would be of the agencies (or other employers of models) rather than of the models themselves. It shouldn't be the case that an individual model will specifically and necessarily be able or unable to work on the basis of a single exam. Rather, it should be that an agency would need to meet some aggregate threshold as the result of these regular examinations as the requirement for certification and, if they fail certification, then the agencies would economically suffer, not the models.
Of course, depending upon an agency's policies, this might result in directly keeping a model from working at that agency. But not from all agencies, necessarily.
Even so, in the end this means fewer jobs for individual models who are less healthy. You can't avoid that because that's actually part of the point. But what you can do is to put as much onus on the employer and their policies and history as possible, and allow as much leeway for individual models as possible so that it's not really so much that the state is "policing women's bodies" as it is that the state is "policing how an employer treats its employees".
How this all relates to these French regulations, I don't know because it sounds like the linked article misrepresents it but I'm not in a position to evaluate the issue myself.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:29 AM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is a weird thread, because I know that if we had posted an strike about women starving themselves to the point of sickness to be models, combined with evidence for how the insist pressures them to do so, there would be a huge outcry of how terrible it is. And something ought to be done. And then those same people come here and complain about this law.
I dunno, is it that we like to tisk over the crispness and damage of social ills, as long as nothing is actually done about them?
posted by happyroach at 11:51 AM on April 4, 2015 [13 favorites]
I dunno, is it that we like to tisk over the crispness and damage of social ills, as long as nothing is actually done about them?
posted by happyroach at 11:51 AM on April 4, 2015 [13 favorites]
I may have missed this in the thread, above, but does anyone know where the current consensus (if any) lies on the issue of the link between anorexia and fashion? I mean, I know that in cocktail-party sociology/psychology they're seen as inextricably linked, but my understanding was that academic studies had tended to pour cold water on the idea.
That's not to say that this law, when implemented, may not serve a useful purpose, but the specific claim about reducing serious eating disorders by removing some of the most dramatically thin models from the catwalks is, I would guess, probably optimistic.
posted by yoink at 12:53 PM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
That's not to say that this law, when implemented, may not serve a useful purpose, but the specific claim about reducing serious eating disorders by removing some of the most dramatically thin models from the catwalks is, I would guess, probably optimistic.
posted by yoink at 12:53 PM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't mind the law -- at least the idea of it, not having looked into the details. I like the idea of companies going to prison (or having their execs go, anyhow) for breaking the law, which is something that happens far too rarely.
It seems odd that the place to start for prison sentences is fashion industry and not, say, financial services or anyone who causes environmental damage, though.
posted by jeather at 1:10 PM on April 4, 2015
It seems odd that the place to start for prison sentences is fashion industry and not, say, financial services or anyone who causes environmental damage, though.
posted by jeather at 1:10 PM on April 4, 2015
And then those same people come here and complain about this law.
Couldn't possibly because punitive laws based on subjective criteria to punish undesirable behavior are rife with the opportunity for abuse and misapplication. Silly me, that never happens, right?
posted by kjs3 at 2:43 PM on April 4, 2015
Couldn't possibly because punitive laws based on subjective criteria to punish undesirable behavior are rife with the opportunity for abuse and misapplication. Silly me, that never happens, right?
posted by kjs3 at 2:43 PM on April 4, 2015
"Seriously, I am really, really surprised. This doesn't seem like "body policing", this seems like "trying to swing the pendulum back towards healthy". "
Well, since I'm the first person to mention body policing, my specific objections were the ones that I mentioned: BMI is not a good proxy for overall health, especially at the edges. And the way the law was presented was based on a vague standard and tied to a presumptive "sick" model, as has happened in other countries (though, so far as I can tell, all of those measures e.g. Spain's, have been voluntary on behalf of the shows). It does remind me of the headscarf ban in France, and it also seems unlikely to have a big impact on rates of anorexia — that's why I referenced the politician's fallacy ("Something must be done! This is something! This must be done!").
I do appreciate Fraula bringing more context, though I don't know enough French to discern between her gloss and Howfar's. The idea of medical participation certificates seems a lot better than deciding on an arbitrary BMI standard and declaring women beneath that as de facto "sick." That's what I object to.
posted by klangklangston at 2:57 PM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, since I'm the first person to mention body policing, my specific objections were the ones that I mentioned: BMI is not a good proxy for overall health, especially at the edges. And the way the law was presented was based on a vague standard and tied to a presumptive "sick" model, as has happened in other countries (though, so far as I can tell, all of those measures e.g. Spain's, have been voluntary on behalf of the shows). It does remind me of the headscarf ban in France, and it also seems unlikely to have a big impact on rates of anorexia — that's why I referenced the politician's fallacy ("Something must be done! This is something! This must be done!").
I do appreciate Fraula bringing more context, though I don't know enough French to discern between her gloss and Howfar's. The idea of medical participation certificates seems a lot better than deciding on an arbitrary BMI standard and declaring women beneath that as de facto "sick." That's what I object to.
posted by klangklangston at 2:57 PM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Amusingly, I reacted with "Yet, another French law the myopic Americans won't understand"
This is like the shitpostiest possible response someone could have. So talking about the potentially follow on effects of the law, even without 100% of the cultural background, is just being a myopic american?
The smugness is wafting right out of my screen.
I think many of the points here are still good points even if they didn't have all the info. It's not unreasonable to assume, say, that if there's some minimum requirements the new standard will be that minimum and they'll try and game right up against the edge of it. Saying the minimum isn't the only standard, even when that came in to view, does not mean the system will not be gamed that way.
I find it hard to take issue with quite a few of the comments here in that vein. There absolutely will be fuckery within these rules, and it will likely still be miserable for quite a few people. Just as it is with pro level athletics, which seems to be the system they're adopting.
posted by emptythought at 3:07 PM on April 4, 2015
This is like the shitpostiest possible response someone could have. So talking about the potentially follow on effects of the law, even without 100% of the cultural background, is just being a myopic american?
The smugness is wafting right out of my screen.
I think many of the points here are still good points even if they didn't have all the info. It's not unreasonable to assume, say, that if there's some minimum requirements the new standard will be that minimum and they'll try and game right up against the edge of it. Saying the minimum isn't the only standard, even when that came in to view, does not mean the system will not be gamed that way.
I find it hard to take issue with quite a few of the comments here in that vein. There absolutely will be fuckery within these rules, and it will likely still be miserable for quite a few people. Just as it is with pro level athletics, which seems to be the system they're adopting.
posted by emptythought at 3:07 PM on April 4, 2015
Amusingly, I reacted with "Yet, another French law the myopic Americans won't understand", like the law against religious symbols in schools and fraula's comment. I hadn't known about the Certificats médicaux myself though either.
I don't get it, are you arguing this is a good idea and I just don't understand why because I'm not in touch with French culture?
The Stasi Commission published its report on 11 December 2003, considering that ostentatious displays of religion violated the secular rules of the French school system. The report recommended a law against pupils wearing "conspicuous" signs of belonging to a religion, meaning any visible symbol meant to be easily noticed by others. Prohibited items would include headscarves for Muslim girls, yarmulkes for Jewish boys, and turbans for Sikh boys. The Commission recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.
I can understand the justification for regulating weight in the fashion industry even if I'm not totally on board with it, but a secular state that restricts expression of religion via...hats...is not my kind of secular state. I understand being secular is very, very important to the French but I think they do make mistakes in pursuit of that noble goal at times.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:40 PM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't get it, are you arguing this is a good idea and I just don't understand why because I'm not in touch with French culture?
The Stasi Commission published its report on 11 December 2003, considering that ostentatious displays of religion violated the secular rules of the French school system. The report recommended a law against pupils wearing "conspicuous" signs of belonging to a religion, meaning any visible symbol meant to be easily noticed by others. Prohibited items would include headscarves for Muslim girls, yarmulkes for Jewish boys, and turbans for Sikh boys. The Commission recommended allowing the wearing of discreet symbols of faith such as small crosses, Stars of David or Fatima's hands.
I can understand the justification for regulating weight in the fashion industry even if I'm not totally on board with it, but a secular state that restricts expression of religion via...hats...is not my kind of secular state. I understand being secular is very, very important to the French but I think they do make mistakes in pursuit of that noble goal at times.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:40 PM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
A medical doctor wrote the amendments. Along with women politicians, feminist activists, and other doctors (some of whom are women). It will require a certificat médical that, among other things, will need to include the model's BMI. The BMI minimum has not been defined, all the theorizing about 18 is just that: theorizing. This is because they recognize there are issues with it
I've been reading around in French news reports on the law (and, really, it took you half an hour to find any? It's in Le Monde, it's in Le Figaro and a whole host of other news sites; it's hardly being ignored in the French press) and while it's true that no specific BMI number has yet been ruled upon, it is, nonetheless, the case A) that Olivier Véran (author of the amendment) himself proposes 18 as the cut-off point and B) the amendment as written requires the Haute Autorité de santé to stipulate a given BMI number as a hard and fast cut-off. And there really isn't a single BMI number you can name that doesn't present serious problems of one kind or another.
posted by yoink at 9:37 PM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
I've been reading around in French news reports on the law (and, really, it took you half an hour to find any? It's in Le Monde, it's in Le Figaro and a whole host of other news sites; it's hardly being ignored in the French press) and while it's true that no specific BMI number has yet been ruled upon, it is, nonetheless, the case A) that Olivier Véran (author of the amendment) himself proposes 18 as the cut-off point and B) the amendment as written requires the Haute Autorité de santé to stipulate a given BMI number as a hard and fast cut-off. And there really isn't a single BMI number you can name that doesn't present serious problems of one kind or another.
posted by yoink at 9:37 PM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
18 is probably not a terrible cutoff if you have to implement a rule such as this. It's underweight, but only by a bit so for most people it's not going to be super unhealthy. It's still going to be an idealistic body type that most people aren't going to be able to attain. It's, unfortunately, not going to open up modeling to a super wide range of body types, it will just open it up to people who can get to 18 but couldn't get down even thinner to hit the earlier standards.
Still, if it is legitimately a good way to protect and promote health, it could be a beneficial move.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:45 PM on April 4, 2015
Still, if it is legitimately a good way to protect and promote health, it could be a beneficial move.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:45 PM on April 4, 2015
Americans appear really shitty at understanding French law, maybe because the French balance authoritarian and anarchist tendencies differently, maybe just because it's the non-English speaking culture I most understand. Americans reliably fail it though.
Americans simply do not understand what fraula means when she says "feminist activists and medical doctors". I'd wager the models have a union that actually represented their interests and influenced this, for example.
Americans fear crazy for good reason. American "feminist activists" wrote the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In drug policy reform, Europe lags behind America only because Europe never sent people do jail for small quantities.
Ain't so insane over there partially because people might listen when you say "more is not always better."
posted by jeffburdges at 10:01 PM on April 4, 2015
Americans simply do not understand what fraula means when she says "feminist activists and medical doctors". I'd wager the models have a union that actually represented their interests and influenced this, for example.
Americans fear crazy for good reason. American "feminist activists" wrote the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In drug policy reform, Europe lags behind America only because Europe never sent people do jail for small quantities.
Ain't so insane over there partially because people might listen when you say "more is not always better."
posted by jeffburdges at 10:01 PM on April 4, 2015
I'm pretty baffled by a lot of comments in this thread too. Where is all the outrage on behalf of the non-skinny women, let alone actual fat women, who are prevented from being fashion models by an excessively prejudiced and sick fashion industry? Or is that ok because it's business and therefore "self-regulating" vs evil government attempting to nanny state entrepreneurs into doing the sensible and healthy thing when they've shown little ability to do so themselves? I know governments can be corrupt and partisan. So can businesses and industries. And the fashion industry has proven time and again that it has no interest in engaging with issues around healthy body images, anorexia, digitally manipulating images to make models seem even skinnier, etc.
Personally I think the fashion industry should use robots to model clothes. I guess robotics isn't quite there yet, but it would make it clear that haute couture has more in common with fine art than with anything people actually wear. And it would separate this niche industry into something purely aesthetic, not anything to try to measure yourself against.
posted by Athanassiel at 10:59 PM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
Personally I think the fashion industry should use robots to model clothes. I guess robotics isn't quite there yet, but it would make it clear that haute couture has more in common with fine art than with anything people actually wear. And it would separate this niche industry into something purely aesthetic, not anything to try to measure yourself against.
posted by Athanassiel at 10:59 PM on April 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'd wager the models have a union that actually represented their interests and influenced this, for example.
Le Figaro suggests that French modelling unions were not involved in the formulation of the law, and that at least one union has some reservations about it. Other sources may indicate otherwise, but this is the first one I turned up.
posted by howfar at 11:46 PM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
Le Figaro suggests that French modelling unions were not involved in the formulation of the law, and that at least one union has some reservations about it. Other sources may indicate otherwise, but this is the first one I turned up.
Du côté des mannequins, l’adoption de cet amendement laisse aussi perplexe. « C’est bien de vouloir protéger les femmes, mais on rajoute une loi sur une autre loi, estime pour sa part James D. Chabert, président du Syndicat des mannequins professionnels associés à Paris.It also appears, to me, that this law is not aimed at introducing health checks for models, because a law to do that already exists and is widely ignored. As fraula has a different view on this, it might be useful for them to clarify. My French is far from fluent, but at the moment the sources I'm turning up indicate that the Telegraph's take on this is more accurate than fraula's, as M. Chabert goes on to say:
La loi de 1984, qui rend la visite médicale obligatoire, n’est pas vraiment appliquée dans le milieu du mannequinat. Il arrive même que des directeurs d’agence fassent en sorte que certaines de leurs filles ne voient pas de médecin, de peur qu’elles se retrouvent en arrêt maladie », déplore-t-il. « Au lieu de légiférer, on ferait mieux d’appliquer les lois déjà existantes », ajoute le syndicaliste, qui dénonce l’omerta qui règne dans le milieu du mannequinatI'm very, very far from an expert on France. I've spent a decent amount of time in the country and I know a reasonable number of French people, but that's it; there are plenty of people on Metafilter better qualified to understand France than me. Despite my limited knowledge, I'm not sure that the evidence available supports the idea that this is "Americans getting the wrong end of the stick and being outraged because they don't understand". If someone would care to provide more sources to clarify my understanding, I'd be grateful, particularly if I am actually misunderstanding.
posted by howfar at 11:46 PM on April 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
Americans fear crazy for good reason. American "feminist activists" wrote the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
They weren't crazy. It turned out to be a bad law and everybody recognizes it now, but they weren't crazy. Society often forced women to be dependent on husbands, husbands who often ended up as alcoholics who spent all their time and money at a saloon instead of feeding their family. When they were home, domestic violence in part fueled by drunkenness was rampant.
It seemed like a good idea at the time, to promote the health and safety of the people impacted by the alcohol industry. That's the danger of regulation though, sometimes something that really looks like a good idea can end up a bad one. That's why I say I think this law on modeling could be legitimately beneficial, but I'm not sure the heavy hand was the right approach when some other strategies still might be available.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:49 PM on April 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
They weren't crazy. It turned out to be a bad law and everybody recognizes it now, but they weren't crazy. Society often forced women to be dependent on husbands, husbands who often ended up as alcoholics who spent all their time and money at a saloon instead of feeding their family. When they were home, domestic violence in part fueled by drunkenness was rampant.
It seemed like a good idea at the time, to promote the health and safety of the people impacted by the alcohol industry. That's the danger of regulation though, sometimes something that really looks like a good idea can end up a bad one. That's why I say I think this law on modeling could be legitimately beneficial, but I'm not sure the heavy hand was the right approach when some other strategies still might be available.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:49 PM on April 4, 2015 [5 favorites]
And I imagine there is almost no one with a BMI of 18 who is constitutionally incapable of gaining like 10 pounds.
Hi! With extremely concerted effort, I was able to gain 10 lbs once in my adult life by drinking Ensure Plus. I lost it and I'm at my normal (for me) weight. I do not have an eating disorder. I'd never be a model anyway, but it'd be really discriminatory to ban me from my profession for something I can't control.
posted by desjardins at 5:50 AM on April 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Hi! With extremely concerted effort, I was able to gain 10 lbs once in my adult life by drinking Ensure Plus. I lost it and I'm at my normal (for me) weight. I do not have an eating disorder. I'd never be a model anyway, but it'd be really discriminatory to ban me from my profession for something I can't control.
posted by desjardins at 5:50 AM on April 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Americans appear really shitty at understanding French law
So far as I can see, this law has been well understood and accurately described in most English-language reports, other than for minor and relatively unimportant points, such as the fact that the cutoff BMI of 18 hasn't been finalized.
I guess robotics isn't quite there yet, but it would make it clear that haute couture has more in common with fine art than with anything people actually wear. And it would separate this niche industry into something purely aesthetic, not anything to try to measure yourself against.
There's an implicit contradiction here. Haute couture is a "niche industry" utterly divorced from people's real concerns and yet somehow it's also the major driver in shaping modern western attitudes towards the body.
I don't think both of these things can be true, and I suspect that the second is the one that is false. I think if the runways of Paris were suddenly filled with models with BMIs over 18 the total effect on your next-door-neighbor's 14-year-old daughter's sense of self would be zero. The media universe she swims in has incredibly little to do with the rarified world of the Paris catwalk: it's TV ads, Hollywood movies, magazine ads, TV shows etc. etc. etc. Haute couture models aren't, actually, held up as some sort of universal feminine ideal in our culture; they generate, in fact, a pretty standard routine of adverse commentary (which we some of in this thread)--about how they prove that fashion designers "hate women" (this is often framed in a homophobic way--that the [male] designers are all queer so they want models who look like young boys), that the models need to "eat a sammich" etc. It's certainly true that anorexics and thinness-obsessed people are also often fascinated with these models, but the causal arrow there is far from clear.
So I think to the extent that this law is designed to have a broad social impact it is probably misconceived. Where this law could do some good, obviously, is in protecting the models themselves. But I do wonder about potential perverse consequences if it encourages some models to try to game the system so as to "make weight" for the certificate and lose it rapidly afterwards. And there is the inevitable problem of using something designed as a broad statistical measure to be applied to large populations (BMI) and turning it into a procrustean bed for individuals. There really isn't a number you can pick that won't either be so low that it will have no measurable effect on the appearance of the models on the catwalks or so high that it will mean some perfectly healthy but atypical individuals will be out of a job.
posted by yoink at 7:56 AM on April 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
So far as I can see, this law has been well understood and accurately described in most English-language reports, other than for minor and relatively unimportant points, such as the fact that the cutoff BMI of 18 hasn't been finalized.
I guess robotics isn't quite there yet, but it would make it clear that haute couture has more in common with fine art than with anything people actually wear. And it would separate this niche industry into something purely aesthetic, not anything to try to measure yourself against.
There's an implicit contradiction here. Haute couture is a "niche industry" utterly divorced from people's real concerns and yet somehow it's also the major driver in shaping modern western attitudes towards the body.
I don't think both of these things can be true, and I suspect that the second is the one that is false. I think if the runways of Paris were suddenly filled with models with BMIs over 18 the total effect on your next-door-neighbor's 14-year-old daughter's sense of self would be zero. The media universe she swims in has incredibly little to do with the rarified world of the Paris catwalk: it's TV ads, Hollywood movies, magazine ads, TV shows etc. etc. etc. Haute couture models aren't, actually, held up as some sort of universal feminine ideal in our culture; they generate, in fact, a pretty standard routine of adverse commentary (which we some of in this thread)--about how they prove that fashion designers "hate women" (this is often framed in a homophobic way--that the [male] designers are all queer so they want models who look like young boys), that the models need to "eat a sammich" etc. It's certainly true that anorexics and thinness-obsessed people are also often fascinated with these models, but the causal arrow there is far from clear.
So I think to the extent that this law is designed to have a broad social impact it is probably misconceived. Where this law could do some good, obviously, is in protecting the models themselves. But I do wonder about potential perverse consequences if it encourages some models to try to game the system so as to "make weight" for the certificate and lose it rapidly afterwards. And there is the inevitable problem of using something designed as a broad statistical measure to be applied to large populations (BMI) and turning it into a procrustean bed for individuals. There really isn't a number you can pick that won't either be so low that it will have no measurable effect on the appearance of the models on the catwalks or so high that it will mean some perfectly healthy but atypical individuals will be out of a job.
posted by yoink at 7:56 AM on April 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Where is all the outrage on behalf of the non-skinny women, let alone actual fat women, who are prevented from being fashion models
Haute couture is a form of art, not an egalitarian exercise in any way. Designers cultivate a fantastic otherworldly atmosphere for these events that set them apart them from the realm of the ordinary. This won't be the case for all time, but today representing the everyday world is often exactly the opposite of what is intended.
The is no human right for all people to become a Parisian fashion model if they want to. Even if there should be, a better complaint even would be to point out the lack of representation for people with asymmetric faces, heavy acne, big noses, and so on. Modeling opportunities do actually exist for the heavy, but not for these people.
posted by Winnemac at 11:56 AM on April 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Haute couture is a form of art, not an egalitarian exercise in any way. Designers cultivate a fantastic otherworldly atmosphere for these events that set them apart them from the realm of the ordinary. This won't be the case for all time, but today representing the everyday world is often exactly the opposite of what is intended.
The is no human right for all people to become a Parisian fashion model if they want to. Even if there should be, a better complaint even would be to point out the lack of representation for people with asymmetric faces, heavy acne, big noses, and so on. Modeling opportunities do actually exist for the heavy, but not for these people.
posted by Winnemac at 11:56 AM on April 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
The media universe she swims in has incredibly little to do with the rarified world of the Paris catwalk: it's TV ads, Hollywood movies, magazine ads, TV shows etc. etc. etc.Just out of curiosity, how do you know that? I mean, I'm not doubting your expertise on the media universe of French teenagers (actually, I am a little bit), but I'm curious about the source of your extensive knowledge. I don't think that models are quite as influential in American pop culture as they were when I was a teenager during the heyday of the supermodel, but they're not invisible. For instance, Teen Vogue covers runway models. (Teen Vogue, by the way, approves of the law. Make of that what you will.) You can follow your favorite model on instagram or twitter. I actually think the media universe of teen girls may be pretty invisible to most of the rest of us, and models may figure into it.
I don't know whether super-thin models are a major cause of anorexia, which is a very complex disorder with difficult-to-tease-out genetic, social and cultural causes, but I think they may be a contributing factor to the general body malaise of teen girls, which is a bad thing in and of itself.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:59 AM on April 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
gryftir: It would be better to require an independent group of rotating doctors to inspect models, and recommend and provide treatment to individuals.Because that works so well in other industries, like bike racing...
posted by IAmBroom at 12:58 PM on April 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
To anyone who thinks this law is faulty because it would ban some models who are "naturally very thin", below "healthy" BMI ranges and yet still healthy (it's not like anything about our bodies is ironclad and absolutely measurable)... please explain how banning 0.1% of the population from modeling is somehow less fair than the current system, where there is systemic pressure on every single fashion madel to sacrifice health for career.
Is a couple skinny people not working as models in France really that much worse than thousands of women chasing unhealthy weight goals?
posted by IAmBroom at 1:02 PM on April 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Is a couple skinny people not working as models in France really that much worse than thousands of women chasing unhealthy weight goals?
posted by IAmBroom at 1:02 PM on April 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Is a couple skinny people not working as models in France really that much worse than thousands of women chasing unhealthy weight goals?
Of course not. What remains to be proven is that this law will lead to "thousands of women" ceasing to "chase unhealthy weight goals." This is just a version of the "so you're on the side of the terrorists then?" argument when it comes to questioning post 9/11 legislation. The fact that the law is designed to address a very real problem doesn't mean it is doing it effectively or wisely. Questioning the wisdom of the law does not require disagreement as to the seriousness of the problem it's designed to address.
For instance, Teen Vogue covers runway models.
No, really? Vogue interested in fashion models. Really, you astound and amaze me.
Teen Vogue is the 85th best selling magazine in France. If we're worrying about what is shaping French teen girls body images, it might make sense to look at, oh, let's say the top 20 magazines. Which doesn't even include Vogue.
posted by yoink at 3:05 PM on April 5, 2015
Of course not. What remains to be proven is that this law will lead to "thousands of women" ceasing to "chase unhealthy weight goals." This is just a version of the "so you're on the side of the terrorists then?" argument when it comes to questioning post 9/11 legislation. The fact that the law is designed to address a very real problem doesn't mean it is doing it effectively or wisely. Questioning the wisdom of the law does not require disagreement as to the seriousness of the problem it's designed to address.
For instance, Teen Vogue covers runway models.
No, really? Vogue interested in fashion models. Really, you astound and amaze me.
Teen Vogue is the 85th best selling magazine in France. If we're worrying about what is shaping French teen girls body images, it might make sense to look at, oh, let's say the top 20 magazines. Which doesn't even include Vogue.
posted by yoink at 3:05 PM on April 5, 2015
Oops, sorry, I CTRL-F'd for "Teen Vogue" once I found that list of magazines by circulation in France but in fact Teen Vogue didn't even make the French chart. Teen Vogue is #85 in the US. There doesn't appear to be a specifically French edition of Teen Vogue. Vogue, itself, doesn't make the French top-50.
posted by yoink at 3:50 PM on April 5, 2015
posted by yoink at 3:50 PM on April 5, 2015
Teen Vogue is a US magazine, so it's not surprising it's not a top seller in France. I was responding specifically to your statement about the media universe of my hypothetical 14-year-old neighbor. Several fashion magazines do make the top-20 list in France. I don't know whether they appeal to young women, but I'm sure that you do, based on your extensive expertise on the reading habits of French teenagers. I'm still waiting to hear about where that expertise comes from, by the way. This is not a rhetorical question. How do you know so much about the media universe of French teenage girls? Do you talk to a lot of French teenage girls about their media consumption habits? Are you privy to surveys or focus groups or analysis of the social media habits of French teenage girls, in particular? Because I'm pretty sure that the people who crafted this law do actually have access to all that stuff, and I'm not sure why you think that you know better than them, except that you seem to have a hyper-inflated sense of your own expertise on all matters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:59 PM on April 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:59 PM on April 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I tend to think that it's actually on the legislators to make a case that this law will have a measurable, positive impact, rather than for opponents to posit it won't. If anyone should be quantifying exactly how much French adolescent body image is shaped by French runway models and their coverage, or even quantifying how many women would be impacted by this positively within the fashion industry, it should be the folks who believe that this law will have an effect, not the folks saying, "What about the null hypothesis?"
posted by klangklangston at 5:41 PM on April 5, 2015
posted by klangklangston at 5:41 PM on April 5, 2015
Yoink made a rather specific claim about the media universe of teenage girls and the place of models in it. I don't think it's inappropriate to expect him to explain how he knows about that subject.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:54 PM on April 5, 2015
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:54 PM on April 5, 2015
I don't think it's inappropriate to expect him to explain how he knows about that subject.
I don't know. It seems to me that Metafilter is at its worst when we succumb to our temptation to treat it like an exercise in competitive debating (although God knows that I succumb far more often than I have any excuse for). Which is not to say that I think you shouldn't express or explain your disagreement or doubt about the specific claim, just that it doesn't really seem to take the conversation anywhere interesting (in most cases anyway) to focus on users' qualifications to speak. That seems, to me, a bit too meta, even for us. We are, after all, having a chat, not compiling a policy document.
posted by howfar at 11:56 PM on April 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't know. It seems to me that Metafilter is at its worst when we succumb to our temptation to treat it like an exercise in competitive debating (although God knows that I succumb far more often than I have any excuse for). Which is not to say that I think you shouldn't express or explain your disagreement or doubt about the specific claim, just that it doesn't really seem to take the conversation anywhere interesting (in most cases anyway) to focus on users' qualifications to speak. That seems, to me, a bit too meta, even for us. We are, after all, having a chat, not compiling a policy document.
posted by howfar at 11:56 PM on April 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Michele in California "I sometimes think it would be nice to start a blog talking about how women can be comfortable in their clothes -- look decent and feel good ..."
One good answer to that question is custom fitted clothes, cut from quality fabrics in classic (conservative) patterns. $$$$$ (count 'em, five '$', on a logarithmic scale).
I really enjoy how complex this issue is. Just when I think every corner of outrage, power and pleasure has been covered, someone reads the issues differently. It's the sort of subject structuralist linguistic critiques were good at, although rather boring.
posted by xtian at 6:07 AM on April 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
One good answer to that question is custom fitted clothes, cut from quality fabrics in classic (conservative) patterns. $$$$$ (count 'em, five '$', on a logarithmic scale).
I really enjoy how complex this issue is. Just when I think every corner of outrage, power and pleasure has been covered, someone reads the issues differently. It's the sort of subject structuralist linguistic critiques were good at, although rather boring.
posted by xtian at 6:07 AM on April 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
One good answer to that question is custom fitted clothes, cut from quality fabrics in classic (conservative) patterns. $$$$$ (count 'em, five '$', on a logarithmic scale).And that's certainly an option that is open to the overwhelming majority of teen girls....
It seems to me that Metafilter is at its worst when we succumb to our temptation to treat it like an exercise in competitive debating (although God knows that I succumb far more often than I have any excuse for).That's fascinating. For me, Metafilter is at its worst when we're discussing issues that are non-academic to women, and some dude comes in and instructs us all on the truth, according to him, which is supposed to trump anything that we may have to say about the matter. It's particularly frustrating when he doesn't know anything about the topic and just assumes expertise based on the fact that being a guy makes him an expert on everything.
On the plus side, I did fall down a google rabbit-hole, and now I know all about the rumored romantic saga of Harry Styles (singer for One Direction, big-time teen heartthrob, dude who has 10 million followers on instagram) and supermodel Cara Delevingne. First there was a reported love triangle involving Styles, Taylor Swift and Delevingne, and then later there was another reported love triangle involving Kendell Jenner (who is also a big-time model, but more importantly is a Kardashian) and Delevingne. Here's Styles commenting on Delevingne's modeling abilities.
I'm fairly certain the little girls know who Cara Delevingne is, for what it's worth, which is probably nothing, because I'm not a dude.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:44 AM on April 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
"It seems to me that Metafilter is at its worst when we succumb to our temptation to treat it like an exercise in competitive debating (although God knows that I succumb far more often than I have any excuse for)."
and
"That's fascinating. For me, Metafilter is at its worst when we're discussing issues that are non-academic to women, and some dude comes in and instructs us all on the truth, according to him, which is supposed to trump anything that we may have to say about the matter."
I agree with both statements.
And I think I agree with the first in the sense that I think that yoink's point about influence is interesting and defensible. I'm not sure whether or how much I think he's correct -- it makes the most sense to me that fashion modeling is only a small portion of a larger whole of this influence but that it's an important portion that may have an outsized influence and, more to the point, he argued the relatively extreme position that it was irrelevant and unimportant.
Furthermore, I agree with ArbitraryAndCapricious that yoink, while taking a pretty strong position, did so in a rather arrogant manner that gives the strong appearance of mansplaining and pulling sweeping generalizations out of one's ass. I totally understand the negative reaction to the comment.
However, I also agree with howfar that going in for the kill and demanding either citations or an abject apology is just escalating things in a way that isn't productive to the conversation.
I apologize for sounding equivocal and recapitulating a mini-conflict, but I do so for the particular purpose of demonstrating that because these are sensitive issues, it's important to be careful in a way that yoink wasn't, and that the fact that he wasn't careful about this shouldn't utterly negate that his questioning just how effective such an approach might be (about influencing the greater culture) is reasonable and worth discussing. I'd like to see the culture changed and my instinct is to support this partly because I'd like to think this would have some cultural effect, but I really don't know how much effect it would actually have. I'm totally open to everything from "almost none" to "surprisingly large". It's not helpful for the discussion about this to be completely polarized into two extremes right out of the gate.
I should say that I'm also surprised that my earlier comment was ignored -- even if this particular regulatory scheme works in a particular way that worries some of the above critics, it's not the case that any possible regulatory approach to this problem need risk the things that those people fear and that, therefore, the only alternative is the status quo.
Personally, I really am uncomfortable with the idea of a doctor examining a woman and deciding, legally, that she's insufficiently non-skinny to work as a model. That seems problematic to me. The context here is that women's bodies have always been considered the property of the patriarchy and this has especially been true with regard to medicalizing and pathologizing the appearance of women's bodies. Even if in this case it's not that, but something good, it exists within this historical context. And, really, I am deeply suspicious when the go-to solution is some medical official examining a woman and deciding whether her bodyfat percentage is appropriate for work as a model.
And I think that we all agree that those models are very definitely not the villains in this -- it's the culture and the industry as a whole. Models are the victims. So it seems to me that an approach that sanctions employers and not models on the basis of aggregate model health would place the responsibility and consequences on the right parties while avoiding the situation where specific doctors are making specific decisions about specific models being able to work on the basis of specific BMI requirements. That just seems to me to be about the worst possible way to achieve this goal. But there's all sorts of better ways and that this (supposed) version is bad doesn't mean that the French or any of the rest of us have to accept the status quo. Because the status quo is very harmful and things need to change.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:21 AM on April 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
and
"That's fascinating. For me, Metafilter is at its worst when we're discussing issues that are non-academic to women, and some dude comes in and instructs us all on the truth, according to him, which is supposed to trump anything that we may have to say about the matter."
I agree with both statements.
And I think I agree with the first in the sense that I think that yoink's point about influence is interesting and defensible. I'm not sure whether or how much I think he's correct -- it makes the most sense to me that fashion modeling is only a small portion of a larger whole of this influence but that it's an important portion that may have an outsized influence and, more to the point, he argued the relatively extreme position that it was irrelevant and unimportant.
Furthermore, I agree with ArbitraryAndCapricious that yoink, while taking a pretty strong position, did so in a rather arrogant manner that gives the strong appearance of mansplaining and pulling sweeping generalizations out of one's ass. I totally understand the negative reaction to the comment.
However, I also agree with howfar that going in for the kill and demanding either citations or an abject apology is just escalating things in a way that isn't productive to the conversation.
I apologize for sounding equivocal and recapitulating a mini-conflict, but I do so for the particular purpose of demonstrating that because these are sensitive issues, it's important to be careful in a way that yoink wasn't, and that the fact that he wasn't careful about this shouldn't utterly negate that his questioning just how effective such an approach might be (about influencing the greater culture) is reasonable and worth discussing. I'd like to see the culture changed and my instinct is to support this partly because I'd like to think this would have some cultural effect, but I really don't know how much effect it would actually have. I'm totally open to everything from "almost none" to "surprisingly large". It's not helpful for the discussion about this to be completely polarized into two extremes right out of the gate.
I should say that I'm also surprised that my earlier comment was ignored -- even if this particular regulatory scheme works in a particular way that worries some of the above critics, it's not the case that any possible regulatory approach to this problem need risk the things that those people fear and that, therefore, the only alternative is the status quo.
Personally, I really am uncomfortable with the idea of a doctor examining a woman and deciding, legally, that she's insufficiently non-skinny to work as a model. That seems problematic to me. The context here is that women's bodies have always been considered the property of the patriarchy and this has especially been true with regard to medicalizing and pathologizing the appearance of women's bodies. Even if in this case it's not that, but something good, it exists within this historical context. And, really, I am deeply suspicious when the go-to solution is some medical official examining a woman and deciding whether her bodyfat percentage is appropriate for work as a model.
And I think that we all agree that those models are very definitely not the villains in this -- it's the culture and the industry as a whole. Models are the victims. So it seems to me that an approach that sanctions employers and not models on the basis of aggregate model health would place the responsibility and consequences on the right parties while avoiding the situation where specific doctors are making specific decisions about specific models being able to work on the basis of specific BMI requirements. That just seems to me to be about the worst possible way to achieve this goal. But there's all sorts of better ways and that this (supposed) version is bad doesn't mean that the French or any of the rest of us have to accept the status quo. Because the status quo is very harmful and things need to change.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:21 AM on April 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm not really sold on the law, either, and I have some sympathy for the idea that it's not really going to make a dent in the incidence of anorexia. I think it might make a dent in the toxic culture in which girls and women exist, and that isn't just a problem for people who end up developing diagnosable eating disorders. I'm not bothered that people are raising objections. I've raised some objections myself. I'm bothered by the specific tone of yoink's comment, which was obnoxious in a boring, familiar way.
I wouldn't frame models as either villains or victims, for what it's worth. They're doing the best they can within the constraints of their situation, same as the rest of us. We all have agency, and it's always constrained. The fact that they have the possibility of fitting into the ideal just gives them a different set of constraints and choices than the 99.99% of the female population who could never be models no matter what we did.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:03 AM on April 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I wouldn't frame models as either villains or victims, for what it's worth. They're doing the best they can within the constraints of their situation, same as the rest of us. We all have agency, and it's always constrained. The fact that they have the possibility of fitting into the ideal just gives them a different set of constraints and choices than the 99.99% of the female population who could never be models no matter what we did.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:03 AM on April 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
I should say that I'm also surprised that my earlier comment was ignored
I was also surprised. I had actually flagged it as fantastic because it articulated a number of things I was struggling to say.
This is an odd thread, and I repeat my apology for my part in making it so.
posted by howfar at 8:20 AM on April 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was also surprised. I had actually flagged it as fantastic because it articulated a number of things I was struggling to say.
This is an odd thread, and I repeat my apology for my part in making it so.
posted by howfar at 8:20 AM on April 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
Teen Vogue is a US magazine, so it's not surprising it's not a top seller in France.
You brought it up in what was an attempt to prove something about teenage French girls exposure to modeling culture. I linked you to a list of the top 50 magazines in France by circulation; as you can see from that list, celebrity culture generally (TV, movies, rock stars) has a massively larger media presence than haute couture fashion.
This is not a rhetorical question. How do you know so much about the media universe of French teenage girls?
I don't claim any specialist knowledge. I'm interested in French culture generally and I consume a fair amount. That haute couture fashion is not a rival, in mass-cultural influence, to movies, popular music and TV is a self-evidently true statement to anyone with even a passing knowledge of French popular culture. I do not need "specialist knowledge" to make the equivalent claim that, say, snowboarding is not as influential on US teens as Hollywood, despite the fact that there are some high-profile snowboarders, with Twitter followers and all the rest of it. The fact that you have been completely incapable of finding any evidence to the contrary (and, really, the observation is banally and obviously true) pretty much proves my point.
now I know all about the rumored romantic saga of Harry Styles (singer for One Direction, big-time teen heartthrob, dude who has 10 million followers on instagram) and supermodel Cara Delevingne.
I'm at a loss why you bring up the British fashion model, TV and film actress and singer Cara Delevingne (and non-French press reporting on her) and her affair with pop star Harry Styles as evidence that teen French girls are passionately invested in the world of the Paris fashion runway. Delevingne is certainly known to (some) French teen girls, but precisely because she has multiple avenues to fame that have nothing to do with her fashion work.
posted by yoink at 11:03 AM on April 6, 2015
You brought it up in what was an attempt to prove something about teenage French girls exposure to modeling culture. I linked you to a list of the top 50 magazines in France by circulation; as you can see from that list, celebrity culture generally (TV, movies, rock stars) has a massively larger media presence than haute couture fashion.
This is not a rhetorical question. How do you know so much about the media universe of French teenage girls?
I don't claim any specialist knowledge. I'm interested in French culture generally and I consume a fair amount. That haute couture fashion is not a rival, in mass-cultural influence, to movies, popular music and TV is a self-evidently true statement to anyone with even a passing knowledge of French popular culture. I do not need "specialist knowledge" to make the equivalent claim that, say, snowboarding is not as influential on US teens as Hollywood, despite the fact that there are some high-profile snowboarders, with Twitter followers and all the rest of it. The fact that you have been completely incapable of finding any evidence to the contrary (and, really, the observation is banally and obviously true) pretty much proves my point.
now I know all about the rumored romantic saga of Harry Styles (singer for One Direction, big-time teen heartthrob, dude who has 10 million followers on instagram) and supermodel Cara Delevingne.
I'm at a loss why you bring up the British fashion model, TV and film actress and singer Cara Delevingne (and non-French press reporting on her) and her affair with pop star Harry Styles as evidence that teen French girls are passionately invested in the world of the Paris fashion runway. Delevingne is certainly known to (some) French teen girls, but precisely because she has multiple avenues to fame that have nothing to do with her fashion work.
posted by yoink at 11:03 AM on April 6, 2015
he argued the relatively extreme position that it was irrelevant and unimportant.
Not quite. I said that removing some small proportion of the most extremely thin models from the Paris runways will have a negligible effect on the broader popular culture. And, really, it is magical thinking to think otherwise. How closely do you have to follow the runways to even notice that, say, 1 in every 20 models who were there last year no longer are (and it seems optimistic, to me, to suggest it would hit 1 in 20). How many people follow the runways that closely? How many of them are young teenage girls?
We're not talking about radically transforming the image of a catwalk model--something that probably would have knock-on effects in the broader culture. We're talking about cutting off the tail of the bell curve so as to remove some outliers.
posted by yoink at 11:10 AM on April 6, 2015
Not quite. I said that removing some small proportion of the most extremely thin models from the Paris runways will have a negligible effect on the broader popular culture. And, really, it is magical thinking to think otherwise. How closely do you have to follow the runways to even notice that, say, 1 in every 20 models who were there last year no longer are (and it seems optimistic, to me, to suggest it would hit 1 in 20). How many people follow the runways that closely? How many of them are young teenage girls?
We're not talking about radically transforming the image of a catwalk model--something that probably would have knock-on effects in the broader culture. We're talking about cutting off the tail of the bell curve so as to remove some outliers.
posted by yoink at 11:10 AM on April 6, 2015
Alright then. It has not been my experience, as someone who has consumed a lot of media aimed at women, that coverage of models is the same as coverage of haute couture. Top models are style icons and celebrities, and they receive coverage in that capacity, as is evidenced by the extensive coverage in the US and British media of a current top model, who is known not because of her relationship with high fashion but because of her reputation as a particularly stylish person and her participation in global celebrity culture. It's possible that things are entirely different in France, I suppose. It's also possible that you're a pompous blowhard who won't back down even though he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I suppose everyone can draw their own conclusions. At any rate, I'm very sorry I got involved in this discussion. I will certainly leave so that yoink can educate us all based on his very extensive expertise on all matters.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:51 AM on April 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:51 AM on April 6, 2015 [6 favorites]
Michele in California "I sometimes think it would be nice to start a blog talking about how women can be comfortable in their clothes -- look decent and feel good ..."
One good answer to that question is custom fitted clothes, cut from quality fabrics in classic (conservative) patterns. $$$$$ (count 'em, five '$', on a logarithmic scale).
I don't agree at all with that.
One inherent problem is that if you are in the clothing information business, then good looking pics are your stock in trade. So I think the space itself is just inherently prone to a slippery slope where it's nigh impossible to fill it and compete with others filling it without going for more "beautiful" models (by some measure of beauty) and more photoshopping of pictures and so on, because eye candy is basically your stock in trade.
So I am glad to see some countries trying to limit how thin is acceptable for the images so many of us consume. I have serious doubts that a niche site that aimed at helping women be psychologically and physically comfortable in their clothes and look decent without torturing themselves would have any hope of competing with the existing deluge of magazines and websites plastered with impossibly tall, thin women who had their make-up professionally done and their hair professionally done etc ad nauseum and who are wiling to suffer to make the photos their art basically consists of.
If the whole point is "I don't want to suffer, I want to look okay and also feel good" then you are starting out from a position of undercutting your ability to compete in a visual medium. Those people who want to look good and don't care how bad it makes them feel will beat you. You have no real hope of beating them. I don't see it being able to get any market share at all or compete at all with the stuff we already have, even though what we already have is profoundly unhealthy and actively undermining the quality of life of anyone who wears clothes, but especially women.
posted by Michele in California at 3:08 PM on April 7, 2015
One good answer to that question is custom fitted clothes, cut from quality fabrics in classic (conservative) patterns. $$$$$ (count 'em, five '$', on a logarithmic scale).
I don't agree at all with that.
One inherent problem is that if you are in the clothing information business, then good looking pics are your stock in trade. So I think the space itself is just inherently prone to a slippery slope where it's nigh impossible to fill it and compete with others filling it without going for more "beautiful" models (by some measure of beauty) and more photoshopping of pictures and so on, because eye candy is basically your stock in trade.
So I am glad to see some countries trying to limit how thin is acceptable for the images so many of us consume. I have serious doubts that a niche site that aimed at helping women be psychologically and physically comfortable in their clothes and look decent without torturing themselves would have any hope of competing with the existing deluge of magazines and websites plastered with impossibly tall, thin women who had their make-up professionally done and their hair professionally done etc ad nauseum and who are wiling to suffer to make the photos their art basically consists of.
If the whole point is "I don't want to suffer, I want to look okay and also feel good" then you are starting out from a position of undercutting your ability to compete in a visual medium. Those people who want to look good and don't care how bad it makes them feel will beat you. You have no real hope of beating them. I don't see it being able to get any market share at all or compete at all with the stuff we already have, even though what we already have is profoundly unhealthy and actively undermining the quality of life of anyone who wears clothes, but especially women.
posted by Michele in California at 3:08 PM on April 7, 2015
« Older MeFites gain 1 h.p. per level after the 14th. | Houston, turn that bass up Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by vogon_poet at 4:26 PM on April 3, 2015 [11 favorites]