Many of the topics that come up on this forum deal with news articles about the fashion industry and body image. These articles often involve journalists asking members of the fashion "establishment" why their industry promotes anorexia by exclusively using emaciated, corpse-like models.
Dissecting these articles is important but frustrating, because the fashion apologists' excuses are pathetically weak. Yet the journalists who interview them never
challenge them on the flimsiness and doublespeak of their excuses, but allow their easily refutable claims to stand unquestioned.
This new Guardian
article is a rare exception. It's a must-read.
In it, finally, some fashion insiders get called on their B.S.
The caption sets up the discussion
As London fashion week gets under way, writer Tanya Gold Gold tackles designers Clements Ribeiro on size zero, outlandish design and token gestures on the catwalk.
First, the designers try to defend the perversity of the fashion industry by claiming that it's about "extremes." Ms. Gold acknowledges this but irrefutably points out that the girls' bodies don't have to be "extreme" to the point of looking sick.
TG: I think an extreme piece of clothing or an extreme idea is important, but when we're talking about women's bodies, we're moving into an area that is unhealthy. I went to the couture collections last year in Paris, and when I saw how thin the models were, and also how poor their complexions were, I thought they looked ill.
It angers me that the typical piece of fashion advertising will feature a girl who is terribly thin compared with the average woman, and it angers me that she will be airbrushed. I think it's dangerous.
Ludicrously, the designers say the following:
IR: We're baffled by it, too. Every season the girls are smaller and younger. When we graduated the typical girl would be a size 10.
SC: But somehow we're sort of locked into that system, and it's almost impossible for us as designers to break out of it.
What???? These designers aren't "locked" into anything! They're implying that some vague outside force is making them choose cadaverous models. But that's a falsehood. They, as designers, choose their own models. They make these choices. They could choose differently, any time they wish. It's their choice. They're hiring the models.
Then one of the designers says something so nonsensical, resorting to such a thoroughly debunked canard, that I'm amazed he could even say it with a straight face:
IR: Most designers, particularly big houses, like the models to look extremely alike so there's a uniformity and you look [at the clothes] and don't get distracted by them [the models].
Think about it: The whole point of this Guardian
article, and of the hundreds upon hundreds of articles that have been written about the fashion industry's promotion of anorexia, is how distractingly emaciated the minus-size models are.
Those models are nothing but
is exactly what they are, more than anything else -- given the endless reams of press that this issue gets. This designer is literally saying the opposite of what is blatantly, obviously true -- as proven by this very article, in which he is participating!
But he lets a moment of unintentional candour slip out when he says:
IR: Right now, as a reflection of our culture, for whatever reasons, the body that is less curvy and voluptuous seems more conducive to creating fashion as we want it.
There we go. "As we want it."
That's what it comes down to, with the fashion establishment. As they
Well, if "as they want it" tiggers anorexia, then they cannot be allowed to have it "as they want it," any more than someone wishing to sell asbestos clothing would be allowed to do so, given that asbestos leads to a fatal illness (and anorexia is likewise very often fatal).
But here's where Ms. Gold takes off her gloves and punches a hole in his argument:
TG: I completely disagree with you. My favourite style era is the 1940s and 50s, and to wear 1940s clothing you needed hips and a bust, which means a minimum of size 12. I went to the Jean Paul Gaultier show two years ago, and what made me laugh out loud was the fact that because his models didn't have hips or busts, he had to build them into the clothes. I think fashion is operating under a delusion.
Brilliant. She just pointed out that by this designer's very practice of artificially augmenting his models' figures, he acknowledged that a fuller
figure was "more conducive to creating fashion."
Next, the designer acknowledges that fashion "privileges one shape" (although a size 0 is no "shape" at all), and Ms. Gold continues to deflate his balloon:
TG: What I want to see fashion doing is the opposite of what you just said, where you have all kinds of women on the catwalk because all women wear clothes.
Applause, and kudos to her for having the temerity to say this, point blank.
Next, the designers shift to the "wealth" excuse. (And notice how this discussion proceeds. When one excuse gets demolished, they shift to another, then another, even when their excuses contradict one another. They themselves don't even believe anything they say. They're just spewing out well-rehearsed, rehashed lines that others have adopted. They're working backwards from "We just want anorexic models because we want them,"
and trotting out any talking points at random to rationalize this.)
But the "wealth" angle is utter rubbish, because it is in fact the aesthetic of full-figured beauty that communicates opulence and richness.
The next excuse (see what I mean about an endless litany?) is that skinny women spend more money on fashion than full-figured women. No wonder this is the case, says Ms. Gold, when designers don't offer clothing in their sizes. They don't buy because there's nothing to
TG: Well I think there is a message from high fashion, as you just confirmed, that it's not for larger women, that we're not welcome.
SC: It's very exclusive in that sense, it's subliminal. We certainly don't do that intentionally. But generally, people don't want to buy it, it's not something they're interested in.
TG: I disagree. If you go down to Bond Street and ask for a size 14 or, God forbid, a size 16, they just don't have it.
IR: A lot of labels will not want a size 16 wearing their designs.
Unbelievable. First, the designers claim fashion doesn't
exclude full-figured women intentionally, then, in the very next sentence, they admit, point blank that fashion does
exclude women intentionally. One sentence contradicts the one before. It would be comical, if the results weren't so harmful. The fashion apologists have zero credibility, as proven by their own contradictory statements.
Ms. Gold concludes her remarks with an observation that has been made here at the Judgment of Paris many times:
TG: It seems as if the aim is to actually eradicate women, and leave these kind of clothes-hanger figures so you can see the clothes.
Tragically, this is all too true, and in so many ways.
The fashion industry tries to eradicate women by starving its models, physically erasing their figures, and sometimes even erasing them from existence (by causing their death).
The fashion industry eradicates women in general in the same way, by brainwashing them into worshipping an inhumanly skeletal shape that makes them diminish their own bodies to the point of nothingness, especially when that worship leads to eating disorders and death.
The fashion industry eradicates women by deceiving full-figured goddesses to be ashamed of their substantial selves and hiding away to the point of invisibility -- hiding in body-disguising clothing, and sometimes even hiding from public view.
It's time for women to turn this abuse on its head.
Instead of the fashion industry eradicating women, women should eradicate the fashion industry.
They should eradicate it as it currently exists, and put in its place "an industry that could potentially do so much to empower women and enrich their lives and make them happy," as Ms. Gold says so well in the article.