Do you agree with banning "too-thin" models from runways?

[Phillycat]

This came up in another thread. Madrid recently banned "too-thin" models from their major show this month. They want to seperate the fashion industry from its link to anorexia and other eating disorders. The link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060908/lf_afp/afplifestylefashion_060908143012

Other countries are thinking about following suit.

My question is, is this a good step to take? On the one hand, I really like the idea of promoting a healthier body image to the young girls out there, and removing the stick-thin fashion models that they see on a daily basis might not be a bad idea.

On the other hand, this is a private enterprise and they should be able to make their own rules. Also, "too thin" seems kind of woolly and subjective to me. Who gets to decide who is too thin? They are currently using the BMI index, notoriously inaccurate.

What do you think?

[LeftyMom]

1. I don't like the idea of punishing eating disorders

and I really don't like the idea of linking anybody's employablity to BMI, because BMI generally tells us less about a person's health than a casual glance would.

I do think that a piss test checking for drugs would clear out a lot of the walking coat hangers, but the change that really needs to happen is for the designers to realize that putting thier clothes on women who look like escapees from a refugee camp doesn't make anybody want to buy.

[XemaSab]

59. I don't like the idea of REWARDING eating disorders

with lucrative fashion contracts.

[elperromagico]

2. I'd be happy if they'd just fucking SMILE occasionally.

Of course, if I had to wear some of the goofy shit they have to wear, I might scowl too.

[cobalt1999]

10. I always wondered about that.

You're young, beautiful, getting paid lots of money to put on clothes all over the world. Damn, what does it take to make you smile?

[SoyCat]

56. Believe it or not, they are told not to smile. They are supposed to be

walking mannequins. The designers seem to think that if the models smile that it will distract from their *fabulous creations*. Sad.

[mark414]

3. that's a bad idea

if governments are allowed to put restrictions on people's weights then next thing you know they'll be saying certain people are too fat to have this job or that job and it'll be ridiculous

this is another example of poor governance and too much governance - government's there to serve the people not act as a fashion consultant

[elperromagico]

4. I agree with you.

The moment a government endorses excluding one group of people, it becomes that much easier to exclude another group. It sets a bad precedent.

[redqueen]

23. Doesn't that happen already?

Flight attendants, aerobics instructors, etc.

:shrug:

[elperromagico]

26. The government doesn't dictate the weight

of a flight attendant or an aerobics instructor.

[redqueen]

27. So if the fashion show sponsors did it, you'd be okay with it? n/t

[mark414]

28. you don't have to agree with it if it was the fashion people behind it

but they're the ones running it so let them make the choice...i just don't like the idea of government involving themselves in things they shouldn't be involved in

[elperromagico]

30. I think you've made the argument better than I have.

:thumbsup:

[elperromagico]

29. If the fashion show sponsors did it,

it would be discrimination. At that point, I would expect the government to become involved.

One of the roles of a democratic government is to protect the rights of its citizens. Casting fashion shows -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is not a role of a democratic government.

[redqueen]

31. Eh, I'm not interested in the details just now..

only the fairness.

I thought the US government recently upheld the right of airlines to regulate the weight of their flight attendants... and the right of fitness clubs to regulate the weight of their instructors.

[buddhamama]

33. you remember correctly

with regards to flight attendants. it went to the Supreme Court, did it not?

[redqueen]

39. I think so, yes. n/t

[buddhamama]

32. huh?

by your definition the fashion industry has discriminatory practices. there are certain qualifications, requirements one must have to be a model.

how is it not discrimination when the fashion industry won't hire shorter heavier women?

[elperromagico]

48. This is a tiresome argument.

I've never said the fashion industry doesn't discriminate. The question is how to deal with it, and I don't believe a government banning a whole group of people based on size is the appropriate way to deal with it.

[Maine-ah]

86. ditto

they'd never hire me, I'm not even 5 feet tall.

[huskerlaw]

34. As though they don't already discriminate?

Like, say, against anyone who isn't a size 0? Please.

I agree that the government shouldn't be involved in casting fashion shows, but to claim that the fashion industry doesn't already discriminate is ridiculous.

[elperromagico]

46. That's a lovely straw man you've built there, husker.

I've never claimed that the fashion industry doesn't discriminate. They do and that should be changed. There should be room for all body types, not just in the fashion industry but in the media generally.

If you want to turn this into a debate about the hiring practices of the fashion industry, fine. You'll find I'm probably on your side. But that's not what the original post was about. It was about a government putting a ban on a certain type of model; that rankles me whether the model is a size 0 or a plus-size.

[huskerlaw]

51. It's not a straw man at all

you said that IF the fashion industry discriminated, you would support the government getting involved.

I merely pointed out that the fashion industry already discriminates...just in the opposite direction.

If you read my entire post, you'll find that I don't think they should get involved in this case, so I'm really not sure what you're so defensive about.

[redqueen]

72. No, he said he'd expect them to get involved, which they did...

and at which point, they upheld the employer's right to discriminate for certain reasons.

Ah well...

[huskerlaw]

74. Except that

they didn't get involved because of discrimination, which was also the point of both of our posts.

They got involved because they didn't want the little girls in Spain to think that they should starve themselves to look like the models.

Discrimination is a legitimate legal reason for the government to get involved; the potential body image issues of its citizenry is not.

[redqueen]

80. Good point. n/t

[Taverner]

5. Like the idea or not, this is censorship

Even censorship for the right reasons is wrong.

[Susang]

6. Honestly?

I think it won't make one shred of difference what Madrid does, its not really a fashion capital. And there's no possible way to regulate the fashion industry anyway. Its not that I don't think that all body images shouldn't be represented in fashion, I just don't think forcing the industry will do much to facilitate it.

[Phillycat]

7. I agree with you about that

I don't think this is going to catch on or anything. I was just seeking opinions. :)

[Susang]

36. I have a feeling you're going to get a lot of them

This subject seems to be quite irresistable. ;-)

[underpants]

8. This is what happens when you let gay men determine female beauty

that and "Sex and the City"

This situation is not as bad as Japanese pop culture....yet.

[blondeatlast]

41. Exactly.

And I'm with you on "Sex and the City," too.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

42. "Sex and the City" RULES!

:P

[blondeatlast]

44. Different Strokes for different folks, so to speak!

:evilgrin:

[ForrestGump]

81. "Different Strokes" RULES!

Whatchoo talkin' about, haruka? :P

[GirlinContempt]

45. I'm starting to think you have a problem

with gay men or something.

[JVS]

88. Do the Japanese allow Gay men to determine female beauty?

[Oeditpus Rex]

9. I wasn't aware Madrid's regional government was behind this

I thought it was the show's(s') organizers.

That bothers me. They might next ban ugly people from leaving their homes... and the weather's been too nice to stay inside.

[Ravenseye]

11. Big Deal, They'll still be skinny

Just not bony...
http://www.cigna.co.uk/main/individuals/products/tools/weight.asp#form1

According to the article, they were restricing it to women with at least an 18 in height weight ratio, which means a 5'10 model needs to weight at least 125 pounds. My wife is pretty skinny (when she's not 8 months pregnant) and she's 5'2 and weighs 125 or so, which is considered healthy (between 19-25 as far as your ratio goes) so it's not like these women are going to look anywhere near normal still.

Just sayin.

[hfojvt]

62. 5-2 and 125 is skinny?

I am almost 6' and 145 and I do not have an eating disorder

[Ravenseye]

63. Sure

She's not a stick, but she wears a size 4 and while curvy is still thin.

You're also in the healthy range and over a 20 ratio. Do you think you could lose 20 pounds though without having an eating disorder though? That's what those numbers are talking about. For you to break below the 18 barrier you'd have to lose about 20 pounds, and I bet those are a very difficult 20 to lose while still staying healthy.

[hfojvt]

71. it might even be healthy

for me to lose some of that weight since I drink too much pop and eat too many potato chips. I am 44 now, but in my college days my weight was somewhere between 120 and 135. At least it would have been if I had not spent a number of those years trying to gain weight because of social pressures. Some people are just naturally skinny, but for a male, it is not a blessing.

[ForrestGump]

12. No

I appreciate the concern and the motive but, like any absolutist rule, this one's Not A Good Idea. Then there is, of course, the question of where to draw the line. For one, not all women who are very slender are that way because they have eating disorders -- sure, perhaps you could say that it matters not why they're so thin but just that the fact that they are encourages harmful emulation in vulnerable women (and men), but I don't think that's fair. And BMI is useless as an indicator of either health or 'ideal' body weight, in my opinion: various BMI calculators I've used put my alleged ideal weight, as a large-framed male of height 6'5", as low as 182 pounds...I was there in my lankier years of at least two decades ago, but as a fully developed male with greater msucle mass, if I ever reach 182, I'm dead.

Stupid idea, albeit one implemented for all the right reasons.

[Zomby Woof]

13. I am not sure

But I do think the government should regulate the size of some models and some runways:



Oh wait... this is a thread about fashion runways. Never mind!

[Blue_Tires]

47. now THAT is a fat bastard!

[Parche]

14. models

I dont think they should be playing on runways, they might get hit by airliners

[elperromagico]

15. Two airplane jokes in a row! DROP THE CONFETTI!!!

[Zomby Woof]

17. I dropped the broccoli instead

Damn near broke my foot. x(

[XemaSab]

60. Someone call for me?

:D

[buddhamama]

16. no.

i have my reasons.

1. the problem with any ideal, and in this case in particular, is it subjective nature. who decides the standard, the ideal. i mean, isn't it somewhat of a reversal of what 'non' modeling women face today (not thin enough). all it is doing is replacing one ideal with another. granted, the new ideal will more accurately reflect the average woman with regards to the weight (health) issue, but on the other hand it doesn't address the other standards set by the industry which is height. i am sorry but the average height for women is not 5'9" or taller.

2. some women are that thin naturally. are we to punish them for it?! thin doesn't equal healthy nor does being thin mean one is unhealthy. same is true of average size women or larger. i have known quite a few plus size women who are in better shape than me.

3. i am not convinced it is going to have that great an effect on how society views women. when society views women differently, when the standards for beauty change, then the fashion industry will follow.

[Phillycat]

18. Interesting: all the responses are "no" but "yes" is winning in the poll.

Wonder why?

[elperromagico]

21. Some of it might have to do with the way you worded your choices.

Or maybe Ken Blackwell is counting the votes.

[Phillycat]

22. How else should I have worded it?

[elperromagico]

24. "Yes" and "No."

It's not as sexy but it's very straightforward.

[xchrom]

19. nope -- fashion changes -- it wasn't long ago

that the glamazons were all the rage -- bigger women -- and taller and athletic looking.

and now it's skinnier women -- and it will change again.

[HEyHEY]

20. Well, if it's contributing to a public health problem

Especially in minors, then I don't see too much of an issue. Only thing is, if the women are just naturally THAT skinny.... the government is depriving them of a way to make a living.

[redqueen]

25. Hey!

:hi:

[pitohui]

58. they're not naturally that skinny

some of the women banned were skin over bone and could have been posted un-edited as thinspiration on a pro-ana or pro-mia site -- most of which have been banned from the entire internet for years

[GoddessOfGuinness]

35. Speaking as one who has struggled with weight issues

I don't think it's right. I don't believe people should be pushed to be any particular shape or size...and that includes trying to make super skinny people put on extra pounds.

People come in all shapes and sizes. We should celebrate that fact.

And while we're at it, let's put some short people on the runways, too! :D

[buddhamama]

37. well now,

you're just too cool. :D :hi:

i agree. and i, too, would like to see some vertically challenged people on the runway.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

53. Awww...

Thanks, Buddhamama!

I'm not so cool...But I'm short! :hug:

[ForrestGump]

82. Don't want no....

No. There's no way I'm going to finish singing that line... :D






And it's not true, anyway..... :hug:

[In_The_Wind]

38. Yes, I do. Being too thin puts a horrible strain on our bodies.

The ultra-thin runway models set the wrong precedent for young girls.

[zonkers]

40. Yes I do... in the spirit of maintaiing high security at our airports..

:nuke:

[KamaAina]

43. Nonsense. Just fire up the ol' wind machine...

...and watch the problem take care of itself! :spank:

[hyphenate]

49. Bringing women back from the brink

of living lives governed by low self-esteem and horrific eating habits is the best news I've heard in a long time.

Once upon a time, a healthy body brought positive self-esteem. As designers kept designing for clothes hangers and not real women, both self-esteem and mental health plummeted, and there is now such a gap between reality and make believe that it's difficult to conceive of designers finally conceding to their utter disregard so many of them have for real women.

This can only be good in the long run.

There are several different body shapes, and it's impossible for someone to switch body types. So it makes it even more unrealistic when designers ignore all other types but the tall and thin. Perhaps young women will finally realize they don't have to be just tall and thin to be beautiful or to be loved.

[Redstone]

50. Well, it's THEIR fashion show. So they get to make the rules. Yes?

Redstone

[jakefrep]

55. Amen.

I'm not sure where anybody got the idea that a government was behind this. This is a private enterprise, they set the rules.

[Phillycat]

68. Well, because it said so in the first line of the article.

Reading is a good thing!

[buddhamama]

70. comprehension is good too

:) :hi:

[Bridget Burke]

66. The government made this decision....

Madrid's regional government, which is co-financing the Pasarela Cibeles, has vetoed around a third of the models who took part in last year's show because they weigh too little.

The authorities collaborated with a Spanish health organisation to come up with a minumum body mass -- a height-weight ratio -- of 18 for the models.

[jakefrep]

77. They shouldn't be promoting anorexia, either

I don't see any problem with this.

[Bridget Burke]

84. How many teenage girls will be at this trade show?

It's only open to people in the business.

[Phillycat]

69. Government-mandated

[bertha katzenengel]

52. No. (1) As much as I see such women as unhealthy, I don't KNOW

that they're unhealthy.

(2) Free enterprise. Designers are entitled to make money however they wish, like everyone else, as long as it doesn't pick our pockets or break our legs -- and as long as they employ adults, and treat their employees fairly (well, we can hope they do).

(3) The models have a choice.

Those are my opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em. YMMV.

[jpgray]

54. Thin and fat can both be beautiful

Telling the fashion world which one to choose to use as model material makes zero sense to me.

[pitohui]

57. i guess i do agree

i don't want to mess w. anybody's ability to make a good living but some of these woman are dying
because of the pressure to be shaped like a coat hanger instead of a woman

[XemaSab]

61. Fine by me...

The fashion industry already discriminates against women who are 5'7 and size 4, for crying out loud.

Oh boo hoo, some chick who's 5'10 and 110 pounds feels discriminated against?

Give me a break. Virtually nobody is naturally that thin... Hitler would like you to believe that the Jews were naturally that thin.

Young people today face so many pressures, there's no reason why a girl who is a size 4 or size 6 should feel fat. I think the fashion industry feeds a lot of the pro-ana bullshit, and if they won't take some of the responsibility upon themselves, then maybe governments should interfere. If there was a sweatshop in China that starved their workers, we'd be outraged, but because it's a bunch of white women who have to starve themselves for work it's okay?

[Bridget Burke]

64. Madrid's Regional Government is behind the ban....

Do young girls really pay that much attention to models at trade fairs? (Edited to add: This show is CLOSED to the general public. Buyers only will attend, although pix will surely appear in fashion publications.)

www.cibeles.ifema.es/ferias/cibeles/default_i.html

Wouldn't actresses or pop singers be more influential?

Some women ARE naturally thin. Designers want buyers to focus on the clothes--not the bodies of the models. And they usually can't have a full range of sizes available at each show. So the tall/thin body has become the norm.

Generally, the women who can actually afford the clothes on display recognize the fantasy element. They know the stern faces & the extreme makeup are part of the show. (Designers often show transparent tops that in the "real world" will be worn over camisoles--or skirts much shorter than actually go into production.) Smart women judge what will look good on them & buy it in the correct size. Otherwise--they become "fashion victims."

Where are the parents of these girls who are wasting away? Aren't there better ways to encourage health than putting people out of work?

[Nikia]

87. If they only have a couple sizes, why not a little bigger?

Surely, there are more young women out there who are size 4,6,8,10 than 0. I have heard that the purpose of thin models is to be walking clothes hangers rather than showing what most customers would look like in the clothing.
As far as putting models out of work, sometimes you have to do that unfortunately to make them realize that they have a problem. Some coaches and dance instructors and more recently, colleges and private schools, have told girls that are too thin that they need to stop losing weight/engaging in behaviors or they will no longer be allowed to participate. Sometimes it backfires, but other times it encourages those who have eating disorders to get treatment and those who haven't reached that point to stop engaging in behaviors.
Part of the problem with the modeling industry is that it generally encourages women to be underweight and many use behaviors to get that thin and feel that the thinner they are the more competitive they are. Women who are even low normal weight are usually not considered thin enough to be models at many shows.

[MiniMandaRuth]

65. The only people who buy this stuff,

or are stupid enough to buy this stuff, are size zeroes.

But, the clothes will only look good on size zeroes.

I think we should concentrate on other things first.

[ScreamingMeemie]

67. That's as stupid as not having normal sized women from mid to large

on the runway.

The key to helping is to notice, diagnose, and treat... not ban.

[Hugin]

73. Sorry, I can't vote in this poll with NO PICS!

Just can't do it.

[XemaSab]

78. Here!

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&q=thinspiration&sa=N&tab=wi

[Hugin]

79. OMG!

Jehosiphats! Someone needs to *feed* those women!

[Hugin]

83. Okay, I not only voted, but, I'm willing to buy these ladies a round of...

Deep fried bacon fat with a side of breaded lard sticks.

Yeeeech!

Poor body image is a sad thing.

[Jamastiene]

75. Those women need to eat.

Simple as that. It's highly unhealthy to be that thin. I'm not saying they should hit the overweight category, but they should eat. IMHO, the obsession those women AND the public seem to have with the skin and bones look is unhealthy while I am at it.

[SteppingRazor]

76. I can't agree with that...

this is the sort of nanny-state crap that drives me up a wall.

[rocktivity]

85. If the low end of a healthy BMI is 19, and Madrid's minimum is 18,

I don't think they're being unreasonably unfair.

:headbang:
rocknation

[KingFlorez]

89. Yes and no

I like the idea, but I think it should be left up to whoever is planning the fashion shows, not government.