The Judgment of Paris Forum

Go Back   The Judgment of Paris Forum > 2005-2012 > 2011: January - December
User Name
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 5th March 2011   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2010
Posts: 188
Default ''Fashion’s ultimate insult to women'' (androgynous models)

If history has shown us anything, it is that when ideological dictatorships (e.g., communism in Eastern Europe) become too tyrannical, the people will rebel and will seek to restore traditional values.

It seems that the fashion industry may finally have pushed women too far, because after years of being aesthetically oppressed, women have finally begun waking up to the fact that they are being brainwashed into resenting their natural figures by a fashion elite that literally hates women for being women.

We saw a hint of this brave willingness to truthfully "name the problem" in Liz Jones' article, which we recently discussed on the forum, in which Jones stated, point blank:

These girls have been used as a smokescreen, so that the gay men who run the industry can continue to peddle the idea that women should look like adolescent boys (it was no coincidence that nerdy, weedy boys walked the runway in womenswear this season). This is their dream, not ours.

Likewise, Pamela recently quoted from an article that identified the disgusting situation that some of the models on the runways aren't even women at all -- literally.

And now, in a recent article, Amanda Platell from the Daily Mail calls this the "ultimate insult to women." For it surely is. Her article is a must-read.

Here are the most trenchant points:

Fashion’s ultimate insult to women

March 2 2011

London - For years now the debate has raged over size zero models, yet each year they became skinnier and less like women. No breasts, no curves, so desiccated by starvation they’d be unable to have a child even if they wanted to.

They became utterly defeminised.

But by whom? Real women started to love their curves long before Christina Hendricks wowed the world in Mad Men with hers. And by all accounts men love them, too.

So who drove this obsession to strip women of their femininity?

It was an edict by the fashion mafia - buyers, trend-setters, photographers, but especially the designers. They decreed that to look good in their creations a model couldn’t look like a woman. She had to be flat-chested, devoid of hips, with collarbones you could hook a clothes hanger on. In fact, she has to look less like a woman and more like a boy.

Size zero turned out to be an apt term as the most feted designers, mostly gay men, effectively tried to squeeze women out of the fashion equation. And now they have.

Who could have predicted that the ultimate solution to the Size Zero Debate would be Zero Woman. Because that’s exactly what we have with London and New York Fashion Weeks, and Couture Week in Paris.

The new darling of the catwalk is a man. The Serbian-born model of female beauty is an androgynous lad of 19 from Melbourne...

It’s the ultimate in woman hating, to create a half-man, half-woman creature because the girls are simply not up to the job. They’re too, let’s face it boys, womanly, even when they’ve been starved to within an inch of their lives.

What an act of abject misogyny.


The obsession with models who looked like boys really took hold in September 2006 when a 22-year-old model collapsed at the Milan shows after stepping off the stage.

For months Uruguayan model Luisel Ramos had fasted and drunk virtually nothing to reach her target weight -she weighed less than 9st at 5ft 9in. She had the body mass index of a teenager ten years younger.

Another model, Brazilian Ana Carolina Reston, died shortly afterwards. The 21-year-old was 5ft 8in and weighed just over 6st when she died.

But like many models, to work and keep the body shape required by the designers and the bookers, Luisel had to fight nature with starvation...

You would have thought that would have been a wake-up call for the fashion industry but no, the designers wanted them even thinner - as demonstrated this week when Samantha Cameron sat in the front row of the Erdem show at London Fashion Week, watching a pair of chopsticks walking down the catwalk.

Chloe Memisevic, the model, was so thin she did not have an ounce of fat on her body. Caved in cheekbones, arms - if you’ll forgive the analogy - that belonged to a concentration camp survivor.

I was at London Fashion Week and I saw some of the women for myself. In the flesh they look even more hideously gaunt, legs without a defining muscle on them, knees that knock together as they walk, chests devoid of any femininity.

How did we ever get to the stage where we allowed a small group of designers - however talented - to determine that this is what is beautiful in a woman?

So step by step the elite of mostly gay designers has been creating catwalk designs for pre-pubescent teenagers, and each year wanting models who looked less and less like women.

And the ridiculous thing is no woman can maintain a body mass index of around 18 - which is what a tall woman needs to look like a skeleton - without abusing their body.

The designers were wanting women to look more and more like young men. That, I am afraid, is the uncomfortable truth. So it was not a big step for them to start replacing women with teenage boys then, was it?

And so step forward Andrej what must be the ultimate misogynist’s in-joke...

The truth is, it doesn’t have to be like Mad Men shoots another series, mainly off the bosom of Hendricks, and Debenhams reports a 225 percent sales increase in clothes that give women hourglass figures.

The article is powerful and unambiguous in its wording. At last, the mainstream media is saying what many women have felt for years: that straight size fashion has "defeminised" them, that today's models are "hideously gaunt" and "devoid of any femininity," looking "less and less like women" every season.

The writer is absolutely correct in stating that this is the "ultimate in woman hating" and "an act of abject misogyny," because it is literally true that "gay men [have] effectively tried to squeeze women out of the fashion equation." And if there were any doubt about it till now, those doubts are gone, as the perverted designers have begun sending models down the runway who aren't even women at all (not just that they don't look like women, but that they physically are not women). It is, as the writer says, "the ultimate misogynist’s in-joke."

But the question she asks that is most important is this:

How did we ever get to the stage where we allowed a small group of determine that this is what is beautiful in a woman?

Ironically, and tragically, it was the aggressiveness of feminism that disempowered heterosexual men in cultural matters, leaving no one to oppose the degenerates who run the fashion industry today. As this Daily Mail writer acknowledges, heterosexual men prefer curvaceous women, and when heterosexual men helped to shape the media culture, the standard of beauty was Kim Novak and Anita Ekberg -- women who, while not quite plus-size, were at least far fuller than the anorexic androgynes of today's fashion industry. They were actual women, and looked like it.

But articles like the one penned by Liz Jones, and the "Average Josephine" column which Pamela linked, and now this Daily Mail report, indicate that women are sick to death of having men who aren't attracted to women tell them how they should look. They are tired of having fashion-industry degenerates impose their perverted vision, heedless of the physical and emotional damage that it does to women.

As Platell says, the industry doesn't have to be like this. It can produce genuinely beautiful, curve-adoring clothing modelled on womanly, full-figured bodies -- models who truly look like women, with generous hips, full waists, and voluptuous curves -- who look well-fed, healthy, and gorgeous.

It's time to end this fashion-industry tyranny, this dictatorship of degeneracy, and restore the natural values of traditional feminine beauty.
Meredith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2011   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: July 2005
Posts: 517
Default Re: ''Fashion’s ultimate insult to women'' (androgynous models)

I see more evidence all the time that women are finally recognizing their oppression by men who are not attracted to women. An Atlanta newspaper published an article just a week ago that addresses this problem and lays it bare.

The article is astonishingly frank and insightful. This may be the most brutally honest and truthful look yet at today's oppression of women by the degenerate ilk who run the fashion industry.

And the writer isn't afraid to name the oppressor.

Every word of the article is worth reading, so I urge you to click on the link. Here are some of the most trenchant points:

Isn’t it is agonizingly obvious from watching a model’s morbidly thin frame strut down the runway that straight men...don’t share the same beauty ideals as fashion designers? Which begs the question: Who are these fashion designers and what images are they envisioning when they design haute couture?

Certainly, they’re not imagining the curves of Marilyn Monroe or the voluptuousness of Dorothy Dandridge...

So what is it about sunken-in jaws and waif physiques that fashion designers find absolutely spellbinding? How is it that they’re satisfied using a sketched framework of a woman’s body on the catwalk instead of the real thing? And here’s the 100 million dollar question – why are fashion designers determined to super-impose the image of pre-pubescent boys onto female physiques?

There is no way to honestly approach these questions without addressing the homoerotic pull of the fashion industry. Same-sex-loving men have fetishized the image of young boys to the point of erecting a physical shrine of malnourished women to celebrate their most primal, and somewhat pedophilic, desires. We don’t see women who have any of the identifying physical features of women strutting down the catwalk because women aren’t desirous sexual objects for their gay taskmasters.

This is a devastating and accurate statement. Calling it a "fetish" on the part of the designers is all too true. The writer identifies why women may be finally rejecting this oppression by fashion designers -- because they see that the designers are trying to physically erase women and the female gender from the catwalk and from the culture, and replace it with a different sex.

The next passages lay out, with unprecedented insight, some of the reasons for why fashion designers actually hate women -- as is clear in their choices of models.

Far from being the object of sexual desire for gay men, women are often resented and viewed as rivals by more effeminate gay men who obsess over gender parity. Let them tell it, they’re just as much female as you, me, or any other “fish”- a derogatory term used for women in the gay community – walking up or down the runway. Their ultimate goal is to trump naturally born demonstrating that their inner diva can outperform our X chromosomes any day of the week.

Of course, anyone with as much as a cursory understanding of psychology can easily discern that all the twirling and cartoonish gesticulation is the consequence of overcompensation. Still, the marrying of homoerotic sexual desire with an irrational resentment of women makes for an extremely toxic brew.

I had never considered the above point before, but it makes absolute sense and is irrefutable. The antipathy of fashion designers toward women is not merely aesthetic, but also personal, as the writer continues to explain:

In answering these claims, many designers feign insult and claim that the job of models is to be a hanger for the clothes. In other words, designers are claiming that they are nullifying the feminine features of their models so that buyers of women’s clothes – mostly women- won’t be distracted by a woman’s body. Apparently, designers feel that breasts and hips are distractions to be designed around, not incorporated into designs for clothes which will eventually adorn the bodies of women who have, you guessed it, breasts and hips!

I would add that it is absolute madness to take designers at their word and allow ourselves to become convinced that they are sincere when they assert that women are only hangers for their designs. Fashion is art, and art is about desire, sensation, creation, and sensuality. Art is impulse driven.

The problem here is that gay designers are driven by the wrong impulses. Their primary desire is to satiate their own appetite by recreating their sexual desires in the bodies of their female models. Gay designers have transformed the fashion industry into their own little autoerotic and self-sustaining play pen, creating a vampire effect which sucks the self-esteem right out of women.

Not only does their perverted industry suck the self-esteem out of women, but it sucks the very life out of women, for it brainwashes women into starving themselves into emaciated forms that are completely unnatural for them to possess.

Women are killing themselves to please gay men whose aesthetic is anti-woman. It's insane. Women are all but changing genders for these degenerates. The situation is intolerable, and it is ruinous for women's physical and mental health.

The article's conclusion is powerful:

The fact that gay designers don’t share the desires of heterosexual men in no way grants them permission to ignore the cumulatively vacuous effect that their dysfunction has on women. It’s high time that the narcissistic fashion industry, largely financed by the purchases of real women, learned to cater to real women. It’s not only as a choice; it’s the only socially responsible one as well.

Bravo. I am amazed both at this writer's courage in truthfully exposing this scandalous situation and her keen insight in comprehending it.

All women should read the article, so that for once and for all they stop allowing themselves to be oppressed by gay men who are fundamentally anti-woman and who hate their feminine curves, and demand that the industry that exists because of their money alone begin celebrating their womanliness and their naturally full-figured femininity.
Emily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2011   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2011
Posts: 155
Default Re: ''Fashion’s ultimate insult to women'' (androgynous models)

Both of the above articles are extremely powerful.

This issue has gained even more traction recently from the decision to Vogue to present a 10-year-old model in its pages. Ten years old.

Now, normally, obsessing about the age of models is a distraction from the real issue, which is body size. After all, many teens are already curvy, so if a magazine were to shoot a 16-year-old who is full-figured, then her age isn't an issue (so long as the working conditions are reasonable and monitored and she is treated respectfully, like a teen actress on a movie set would be). If Vogue had, for example, shot Christina Schmidt when she was in her teens on Degrassi, a time when she was already full-figured, then the images would have actually been a great benefit to size celebration.

However, when a magazine shoots a girl who is 10, and thus truly pre-pubescent, this is clearly a case of the industry adopting a destructive aesthetic.

This article in The Guardian sums up the situation very effectively:

The key excerpt:

it has long been said that fashion is a con-trick by largely gay male designers to make women look more like men: breastless, hipless, as skinny as a boy. And in this respect, pre-pubescence is merely the next logical step. These clothes aren't meant to look good on you, they're meant to look good on Justin Bieber. (And even he would struggle in that Marc Jacobs dress.)

Child models are absurd. The logic of anti-femininity taken to its ultimate extreme, an expression of the hatred fashion designers seem to possess towards the women they dress. Wear Tom Ford, or Marc Jacobs, or Miu Miu… but only if you really hate yourself that much.

All too true.

The model was very specifically selected to be so young that she exhibits no traces of feminine womanliness, yet also doesn't have the softness of girlhood either. And yet she is dressed in "high" fashion. She was chosen to embody the warped androgynous vision of the degenerates who run the fashion industry.

And this is the industry that plus-fashion professionals worship so much that they keep shrinking their models to emulate? These are the types of people whose favour plus-fashion professionals seek?

Instead, the plus-size fashion industry should do everything it can to carve out a separate identity, to stay away from this anti-plus, anti-feminine aesthetic, and to establish itself as a sane, moral, wholesome alternative - a vision of fashion that embraces traditional femininity and well-fed beauty.
Pamela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st December 2011   #4
Join Date: July 2005
Posts: 1,784
Default Re: ''Fashion’s ultimate insult to women'' (androgynous models)

Originally Posted by Emily
This may be the most brutally honest and truthful look yet at today's oppression of women by the degenerate ilk who run the fashion industry. And the writer isn't afraid to name the oppressor. is absolute madness to take designers at their word and allow ourselves to become convinced that they are sincere when they assert that women are "only hangers for their designs." Fashion is art, and art is about desire, sensation, creation, and sensuality. Art is impulse driven.

The problem here is that gay designers are driven by the wrong impulses. Their primary desire is to satiate their own appetite by recreating their sexual desires in the bodies of their female models. Gay designers have transformed the fashion industry into their own little autoerotic and self-sustaining play pen, creating a vampire effect which sucks the self-esteem right out of women.

The article that Meredith posted is powerful as well, but Emily's link may be the rawest, most uncomprimosing exposé of the problems in the fashion industry ever penned. It reveals a rottenness at the very core of fashion and reveals why this industry is such a toxic enterprise. To her credit, the author does not, in fact, simply refer to "fashion" or "the industry" in the general way that most writers do (ourselves included), which lets individual culprits off the hook. Rather, she precisely pinpoints the group that blights this industry and warps it into a toxic shape.

Do the writer's words seem extreme? Hardly. She merely has the courage to say what needs to be said. How significant and intractable is the problem that she identifies? How deep does it go, and what are its ramifications? Consider the appalling words of one Cecil Beaton, who was "one of the most celebrated style luminaries of the 20th century." How did Beaton, a homosexual photographer, view Elizabeth Taylor, who was one of the most gorgeous actresses of the 20th century, and who was as close to full-figured as Hollywood would ever permit? He termed her

a great thick revolting mass of femininity.

Just think about the pathology behind such a statement. Consider the kind of twisted mind that finds "femininity" a "revolting" quality, and sees in Taylor's luscious, succulent, womanly curves merely a "thick mass" that is likewise "revolting."

For anyone to have such a diseased aesthetic would be bad enough--but consider: this person was a "style luminary," a guiding light of the industry, and entirely representative of the types of individuals who are the arbiters of taste and have hegemonic control over the fashion world.

Thus, the body image of women around the globe is in the control of a tiny pocket of abnormal individuals who femininity "revolting" and see in voluptuous, gorgeous curves nothing but a "thick mass."

Is it any wonder that the fashion industry ruins women's self-esteem and creates a toxic visual culture, given that it is under the control of individuals such as this? And remember: this degenerate view of femininity is hardwired into their brains. It's how they are born to see the womanly body. No wonder they seek to starve it out of existence. No wonder they put in its place walking cadavers whose gaunt, emaciated appearance truly is "revolting" to anyone viewing such diseased frames with healthy, normal eyes.

Whether by government intervention, or by another means (though no other means seems capable of achieving any change in this poisonous industry), the fashion world must be reformed. Hateful individuals with degenerate aesthetics can no longer be allowed to dictate the terms of feminine beauty, given that they find femininity itself so abhorrent.

And even if the size-0 empire cannot be made to change, at the very least, the plus-size industry can be the essential alternative to the toxic fashion establishment, a world apart, guided by individuals who see, in a well-fed womanly body, a "great, thick, gorgeous figure of femininity," who are hardwired to adore the sumptuous contours of full-bodied women, and who will thus create an alternative visual culture that will raise the self-esteem of curvy goddesses and enable them to see the stunning beauty that they possess.

Sophie Sheppard dazzling the world in her thrilling Vogue Italia video, the soft roundness of her facial features epitomizing timeless feminine beauty.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

- Sophie Sheppard in Vogue Italia

HSG is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:39.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.