Times Online: Jourdan Dunn is the colour of money
by Guest Contributor Brigitte, originally published at Make Fetch Happen
This rambling piece about Jourdan Dunn and the problem of racial discrimination in the fashion industry doesn’t really add anything new to the discussion. There is still the same three lines about black models not selling well, their various looks not being “in” at the moment and the usual finger pointing. It paints Ms. Dunn as the great black hope of fashion and notes that all the ink about racism in fashion has added up to more work for the young model. Here are some select quotes from what is presented.
The fashion industry is racist:
These days, ethnic beauty is pretty much invisible.
The fashion world, on this evidence, has been screening out ethnic beauty.
Black faces don’t sell magazines:
Editors and managers say that, however much they want to use ethnic girls, putting one on the cover of a glossy magazine will depress sales. If ethnic women brought in big profits, nobody in the industry would be in the slightest bit interested in their skin tones or their racial type. Rightly or wrongly, though women from ethnic minorities are considered a bad commercial bet.
It wasn’t always like this:
In the 1960s and 1970s, ethnic women were much more visible in fashion. That was a time of exuberance and change; the time of the Black Power movement, the mantra “black is beautiful”, Roberta Flack singing Be Real Black for Me. This mood continued into the 1980s, with models such as Iman, Pat Cleveland and the young Campbell splashed everywhere.
The gay white puppet masters of the runway like women who look like smooth boys:
One suggestion is that the absence, particularly of black girls with African features, has to do with the tiny minority of people who make the fashion weather: the arbiters of fashion. These are the top casting agents and designers who decide whom to send on photoshoots and the catwalks, and many of them are gay white men. I’m told they really don’t like black women. Again, the question is, why? Or, rather, why not? As ever, if it’s not something to do with money, it is probably something to do with sex.
The sexually immature look is hot right now:
The ideal of female beauty in the fashion industry today is childlike, almost bordering on paedophilia. With few exceptions, the most sought-after faces have small, childish features, with little noses, little chins, small mouths and big, little-girl foreheads and eyes. They are childishly asexual. The same goes for fashionable bodies. The hottest bodies are almost always immature, lacking in secondary sexual characteristics – no curves, no breasts, no body hair.
Black models have the wrong type of body for fashion:
Asian girls, with their uncurvy, boyish figures and neat features often fit easily into this mould, but models with pronounced African features – large, full lips, wide noses and different facial proportions, as well as more curves, bigger bottoms and fuller breasts – do not.
Black women are too naturally sexual for fashion:
Several people have suggested to me that the gay arbiters of fashion find full-on female sexuality distasteful, which is why they don’t favour this kind of womanly beauty among white girls, either.
The new class of super-rich people also hate to look at black people:
…marketing aimed at the new mega-rich consumers in China and Russia cannot afford to ignore the fact that those countries are more racist than the west.
Black people don’t like looking at black people either:
There is also evidence that ethnic women have been ambivalent about their own kind of look for many years. For decades, women with dark skin the world over have tried to make their skin paler or their hair straighter, sometimes with dangerous chemicals…
There are, of course, issues of status and power tied up in all this. Most dark-skinned people have been colonised or overrun by pale-skinned people. Pale, in folk memory, means power and wealth, and this has been deeply internalised. Perhaps this is partly why there is some resistance among black and other ethnic women themselves to dark-skinned beauty, even now; perhaps they themselves find something else more aspirational.
*****
Nice diagnosis at the end huh? I’ve got to stop reading this stuff. These articles all say the same thing and there’s never any solution presented. It really does surprise me that there seems to be zero interest among influential black folk in the media to really invest in publishing a high quality fashion magazine aimed at Black women. I’d rather see that that yet another rapper or r&b diva’s tacky ass clothing line. My eyes…they hurt from the non-stop rolling.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Natasha Vincent wrote:
There’s more money in hair…or at least that what I can tell from all the glossy zines both domestic and international.
Of this type, a higher end zine pick would be BLACKHAIR out of Hairflair Magazines in the UK. Vibe Vixen (US-based) also seemed to try to get into this space.
Notice I’m not commenting on the referenced article. There’s just too much to poke at!
Really enjoying this blog though so keep up the good work!
Posted 14 May 2008 at 9:46 am ¶
Thea wrote:
This article is totally disturbing. Stating that “ethnic girls depress sales” and “black women used to be fashionable!” without any analysis implies that these trends are based on some concrete immutable rule, rather than very particular issues that are completely constructed by our current (racist) culture. Gross.
Also (I meant to say this in response to the call out for mixed race models to hawk Lohan’s leggings) wanting to use models of colour to sell products is just as distasteful and frightening as not wanting to use them, if not more - at least to me.
To me whether the fashion industry includes certain races, or excludes certain races, the decision is based on race, and the decision is a direct consequence of imperialism and colonialism - in other words beliefs that people of colour are a commodity to be used.
If a line of clothing not run by black women or for black women went out of their way to use black women’s bodies to sell their clothes, I’d be just as horrified as I am when I hear that the fashion industry will not use black models. I seriously hate American Apparel, no matter how great their manufacturing practices are. Their pornified shots of mixed race models don’t make me feel included, they make me feel like my body and race are for sale.
And also, I know this is nitpicking, but it drives me up the wall when the term “ethnic” is used to describe people of colour. Once and for all, everybody has an ethnicity! Pullease.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 9:58 am ¶
Tasha wrote:
the good news?
Italian Vogue’s entire July issue has been shot with black models
I’ll be purchasing the July Italian Vogue
…for the first time in 10 years
Posted 14 May 2008 at 10:07 am ¶
Tasha wrote:
ooh and in case you didn’t know
http://www.coluresmagazine.com/home.htm
http://www.clammag.com/
Posted 14 May 2008 at 10:18 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Gawd. Could the article have any more circular reasoning in it? I totally agree with your summaries, so if I may appropriate them for a second…
>The fashion industry is racist:
Yes, and this is the CAUSE of pretty much everything that follows.
>Black faces don’t sell magazines:
Because of racism, internal and external.
>It wasn’t always like this:
Because of racism - it’s 1960s/1970s backlash that started in the 1980s, and it’s still going strong. When minstrel-esque reality shows are brought back and noone bats an eye, I’d say it’s still going strong.
>The gay white puppet masters of the runway like women who look like smooth boys:
and
>The sexually immature look is hot right now:
And here’s the homophobia (not yours, Brigitte, but the article’s). Who is this gay cabal? Is it the same one that makes the Gay Agenda (TM)? This supposed group of elite snobs doesn’t match any of the gay men in my life - they have female and male friends of all shapes and sizes, some are not super-skinny themselves, and so on and so on. Of course they usually have more important things to worry about than coutoure - like paying rent, getting an education, doing that career thing, social causes, spiritual explorations, recreational winery visits, travel, family obligations…
Not to mention, the gay men I know would not DREAM of touching a child. I always find the whole “homophilia = pedophilia” assumption appalling and just a scary falsehood that gives child abusers cover and excuses.
>Black models have the wrong type of body for fashion:
And we’re back to racism.
From the article: “Asian girls, with their uncurvy, boyish figures and neat features often fit easily into this mould,”
That’s funny, because I cannot name one Asian model at the moment, while even I, who does not read fashion mags, can name more than a few European or primarily European-descent models. If the stereotypically Asian female figure is so common, WHERE ARE THEY? Furthermore, there are tall Asian women, chunky Asian women, big-bosomed Asian women, wavy-haired Asian women… sheesh. Margaret Cho has made a career out of skewering Asian female stereotypes. Guess she’s just an anomoly, hunh?
>Black women are too naturally sexual for fashion:
Racism and homophobia. I love how the article blames everyone but the ethnic group that tends to OWN all of these outfits in the first place (I’m talking the big Houses, the knock-off firms, the marketing firms and advertising agencies, the corporate businesses that direct and hire the manufacturing efforts). Hint: it’s not the gay men, or the women of color.
>The new class of super-rich people also hate to look at black people:
and
>Black people don’t like looking at black people either:
May be true based on racism (the former statement). Or based on a history of colonization. May NOT be true, because theyr’e simply not available. Putting one black model on one cover every year in February is a little obvious - people are going to notice it and avoid that BECAUSE it’s a stereotype, and it’s pandering. What you need is a concerted diversity effort year round, not tokenism.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 10:23 am ¶
dodgerdodger wrote:
@Lyonside
I also bristled at the “it’s the gay white men’s fault!’ line of argument.
It is gross distortion of reality to declare that ‘gay white men’ only like child-like, boyish figures, or that the fact that a gay man participates in the fashion industry has anything to do with his physical preferences. Maybe in American teevee-land all gay men are mincing mini-autocrats all lusting after the same type of barely pubescent boy, but in the real world the only preference for anything that gay men share is that they like other men. That’s it. Otherwise, preferences come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and gender presentations. Just because the media is devoted to characterizing all gay men one way does not (surprise!) make it true.
The hip-to-it ‘metropolitanism’ seeping out of this article can’t disguise the fact that the author endorses the assumption that gay = child rapist.
Which is not even to mention the weirdness of brushing right over the supposed racial make-up of the Gay Fashion Cabal. “They’re all white.” Okay, why? Accident? Tragic misalignment of the stars? The ‘gay gene’ predisposes you to being fashion forward, but only in combination with the ‘white gene’? What is it?
Lord knows let’s just make sure we don’t say the ‘r-word.’
Posted 14 May 2008 at 10:54 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“Asian girls, with their uncurvy, boyish figures and neat features often fit easily into this mould, but models with pronounced African features – large, full lips, wide noses and different facial proportions, as well as more curves, bigger bottoms and fuller breasts – do not”
Then why isn’t the fashion industry dominated by Asian women? Slender, reedy bodies aren’t “typical” of white women, either — nor are the full lips and high cheekbones that the modeling industry does, contrary to this woman’s delusions, strongly select for — but somehow they find models that fit the mold, because they scour the globe to find white women with features that are phenotypically uncommon within their group. So all that “Asians aren’t tall enough, blacks aren’t thin enough” stuff doesn’t fly… if the standard were applied equally, Asian women would indeed dominate because they most often have the combination of physical features that the industry claims to lionize + a very large pool of candidates within which there will be a wide range of natural variation in height + lucrative emerging markets in the East. The fact that despite this, there are precious few Asian models seems pretty discriminatory (no pun intended).
And *eye roll* at the backwards compliment — “You’re too womanly, so misogynist gay men don’t like you!” B.S. … where’s our representation in Maxim, Stuff, et al? What about straight female designers? Do they tend to hire more black models, overall? (von Furstenberg aside) I’d say that it’s not just gay men that are averse to our uber-womanly charms, so why shove the blame onto them in particular? Because it’s easy, that’s why. I’ve already expressed my great displeasure at the blanket depiction of gay males as men who hate women, are a hairs’ breadth away from pedophilia and just can’t keep their libidos out of their work before. Blame the gays, blame the Chinese (they’re racist against “their own”, too, huh), whatever. Could it be that if black women don’t sell, that could be attributed to — customer racism, not just in faraway, “backwards” areas like Russia, but right where the fashion world’s heart is at? *cue dramatic hamster*
“I’ll be purchasing the July Italian Vogue
…for the first time in 10 years”
I’m buying two — one for collecting, and one for doing what thy wilt. Does anyone know of a bookstore chain that carries Vogue Italia, because my local Barnes & Nobles apparently doesn’t.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 1:14 pm ¶
rumblerumble wrote:
To echo Tasha, I can’t wait to see the new Vogue Italia. It feels token-y, of course, and I’m nervous about the nature of the shoots (please, don’t let them have urban-jungle themes), but I have hopes that it might prompt fashion magazines to include more WOC in their fashion spreads.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 1:35 pm ¶
Phrone wrote:
The entire time that I was reading the article, I was going “…Wait, what?”
The argument that the racism in the fashion industry is due to the fact that it’s dominated by white, gay males reeks of homophobia, most pronouncedly in its assessment that homosexuality = pedophilia. It also added homosexuality = racism.
All this, of course, saying that if WOC actually sold magazines, then of course the industry would be just DYING to put them in.
The article really seems to want to find “others” to blame — not only gays, but also foreigners (in all the talk about foreign markets) — and any real analysis of the effects of racism (or imperialism) is avoided or otherwise skimmed over. (The last two paragraphs read, at least to me, like “Ohyeahtheremightbethiswhole,youknow,historyofimperialism BUT IT’S CHANGING YOU KNOW, RIGHT?”
Posted 14 May 2008 at 1:59 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
The thing I really don’t seem to understand the most is the allegations that black models don’t have the right body for fashion, and that they are too sexual (and that “Asian girls” have the perfect body for it). To me that is ridiculous to just lump people by race like that. There are plenty of thin and curvy black women, and plenty of thin and curvy white women, plenty of thin and curvy Asian women, and so on. Women come in all shapes and sizes. I wasn’t aware that Asian women only come in one size only. I guess I just can’t understand that kind of thinking. Plus, the fashion industry is hyper-sexualized. Even by having models that are “sexually immature” that is still sexually provocative.
I also hate it that the author says that Jourdan is remarkable because she is black. Come on. I guess the author didn’t see her simply striking features, which is what I think makes her remarkable.
I think that what it all boils down to is that the fashion industry is not only racist, but also sexist, and misogynistic. What can be done?
Posted 14 May 2008 at 3:29 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
I feel little odd chiming in here because I have almost exactly no interest in fashion (as an industry or concept) but… my cousin has been in the business since she was 13–as a model. I’m Lebanese guy and she is my improbably 5′11”, blonde, blue-eyed, three-parts Welsh to one part Leb, second cousin (yeah, if you follow this stuff you have probably seen her). She is a fantastic woman: strong, funny and unimpressed with all the bullshit of her business. According to her, the disappearance of Black models starting in the 80s was directly related to the rise of so-called “ethnic” models as represented by…Cindy Crawford. Yeah, you read that right. Brown hair and full lips on a white girl = “ethnic.” This was bad timing for my cousin because the beauty paradigm shifted just as she was coming of age as a model. Which means that, for a time anyway, Black “girls” (their term, not mine) and Blonde “girls” were out, in favor of vaguely “ethnic” ones. In a move that should surprise no one Blonde models found their way back in (as “waifs,” which my cousin never was) and Black models mostly didn’t. In other words, Fashion–like music–absorbed the unique characteristics of Black people and expressed them in white terms. Which why the most successful models now are Eastern-European “girls” with…full lips and brown hair. Want to know where all the black models have gone? Fashion ate them.
A post script: my cousin told me that while her look was “out” in America she made a lot of money modeling in Asia, where being a giant blonde never goes out of style, apparently.
I told you she was funny.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 3:38 pm ¶
Jha wrote:
That’s all a bit inaccurate.
For example, “Asian girls, with their uncurvy, boyish figures and neat features often fit easily into this mould”. Not true. Most Asians simply wouldn’t have the height. That’s why you don’t see more high-fashion Asian models. Most Asians wouldn’t even be able to hit the height minimum requirement of 5′ 7″.
It’s somewhat true that most black women don’t fit the required mould for high-fashion (particularly runway) with regards to body-type: designers want models as hangers, and there aren’t a lot of black women who are that thin. There’s also a certain look (in terms of facial features) that agencies go for as well.
It’s also true that the fashion industry IS racist - it’s run by the designers and people who own the fashion houses and they’re the ones who hire the models. The “best” explanation I’ve ever come across for their choice is that they usually want a uniform sort of look for their shows, hence the lack of colour in high fashion. Even models who have been in the industry long enough admit that. But it’s sort of racist in a more superficial manner - the impression I get isn’t “coloured / different body types = inferior”, but more “clothes don’t hang well on them, so never mind”.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 3:58 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
now, if a 13 year old girl who was feeling wonderful and self confident picked up this article, she may finish it second guessing her own self esteem…
Posted 14 May 2008 at 4:33 pm ¶
TierList E wrote:
On thing that always bugs me-
“Yeah we want women who look like children, and of course black features are not childlike”
Um,and what about black children?
When I was younger my black nose stayed at almost perfect porportion to my face as it is now. And “too dark” skin also can start pretty much instantaneously in darker children. That explanation does not fly with me.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 5:49 pm ¶
uu wrote:
I still alittle erked at the fact that we still have to wait for white folks with the power to accept us brown-colored folk. I’m not fashion oriented and I’m glad I’m not because that would just add to the sickness of internalized hatred due to racism and prejudice.
I work at a book store and some times have the misfortune of putting back magazines people taken out of the selves. Everytime I do, I usually do a little exercise were I stand about 10 feet from the shelves and just look expansively at the covers of the mags especially in the women’s interest section (includes fashion, hair, makeup, home decorating, crafts mags). Each and everytime, nothing but white faces for all the eyes can see with a sprinkle of brown faces. If you were to see that you would think not much has changed.
The way I see it, white people (specifically addressing white women for the sake of this article) are very, if not overly sensitive to the images they see when flip through a magazine. They could feel alienated and uncomfortable if they saw that there Vogue, People, Us, V, W, or Cosmopolitan had nothing but black, latino, and asian faces with just a hint of white faces staring back at them. I think the editors of these mags do this because they know how fragile they are as well as their clientle are.
As for the fashion designers, I think they can easily be seen as charlatans. If they can’t take it upon themselves to make just about any female black, white, brown, big, tall or small look beautiful and glamourous and have the reflected upon other people, then they are THIRD-RATE AT BEST. There I said it. They only have a narrow view of who can wear there clothes on a runway or grace the cover of a mag because they would SUCK otherwise if given a woman of color or a woman that is bigger than a size 1. They themselves know it. And I know all you guys know it to. This is article barely a surprise.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 5:55 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
Joseph’s addition to the conversation is interesting, but I distinctly remember a period between Crawford’s heyday and today when multiracial-appearing models were all the rage, so much so, they were being touted as “the future of fashion”… this was some time in the mid 90s, I believe, sometime around the Brazilian model explosion, the more ethnically ambiguous you looked, the better. I’ve also always wondered about the neoteny argument…. I mean, look at the average child’s face… there’s usually a flat, round, small button nose, full yet brief lips, undefined brow ridge, blunt chin, large, far set eyes and a round face…. how does childlike=European, when the facial phenotype commonly consists of angular, “sharp” features? Someone’s talking out of both sides of their mouth, here.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 8:52 pm ¶
vetically challenged wrote:
Personally, the fashion industry is too hyper-imbued with pale skinned Twiggy/Lolita-ness to change as a whole (sorta of like the public school system)— ppl can do all they want to try an normalize chocolate/caramel/hazel beauty, but it will just be a ephemeral trend in the current fashion industry.
I think a separate, “Third World” fashion world is developing, but its not as publicized as the European/American fashion world…
damn, i’m sick of seeing people of color buying into this white cultural appropriation.
people please: romanticize your own culture too and try not to give a tinker’s fart about looking like a malnourished hobo.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 9:37 pm ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
“For example, “Asian girls, with their uncurvy, boyish figures and neat features often fit easily into this mould”. Not true. Most Asians simply wouldn’t have the height. That’s why you don’t see more high-fashion Asian models. Most Asians wouldn’t even be able to hit the height minimum requirement of 5′ 7″.”
@Jha
There’s a hole in that plot though, big enough to drive a MAC truck through. Fashion and modeling are not exclusive to NY/Milan/Paris. Major cities in Asian countries (Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Mumbai, Hong Kong, etc.) have fashion industries, and fashion weeks, and fashion shows, complete with Asian models that are just as tall as white ones. That height criticism is a real cop out, and the proof is beamed into our living rooms annually with the Miss Universe pageant. The contestants from the Asian countries are seldom short. Riyo Mori (Japan), the current Miss Universe, is 5’9”. Du Juan (5’11”), the Asian model du jour, right now, won Miss China, and that’s how she was discovered. Zhang Zi Lin, the reigning Miss World is Chinese, and she’s 6’1”. Racism is the only thing keeping more Asian models off of the runways in the West because it’s not like scouts would have to scour the East for prospects. The tall Asian women with model potential have already been identified by the agencies representing them in their current markets and are ready to be exported.
And anyway, there are a handful (emphasis on handful, as in I can count them on one hand) of Asian girls getting shine these days on the runway. You don’t see them as often in our fashion magazines, but these girls work and get lots of editorial love outside of the US, especially in Asia. Chanel had maybe three or five Asian girls walk for Fall 08’. Ok, so there’s Du, there are these two other Chinese girls, Emma Pei and Liu Wen. Two Korean girls Hye Park (though I think Hye was raised in the US) and Han Jin (who’s appeal is lost on me, but she booked a lot of important shows, so she must be special, right?) And nary one is shorter than 5’10”!
And when did this notion that clothes don’t hang well on black women begin? This must be a new concept because black models were all over the runways in the 80’s and 90’s. And even if what you say about most black women is true, that doesn’t negate the fact that reed thin, black models do exist and are currently signed by modeling agencies. So, the “there just aren’t any . . .” concept isn’t true. They’re there. They’re just not getting booked.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 9:44 pm ¶
marge twain wrote:
[sigh] People, there is no sense to be made of this article’s logic. It has more holes than swiss cheese. More stereotyping and pointing fingers everywhere but where they should be: at designers(who are NOT all white or gay or male) and at fashion magazine editors (who are overwhelmingly white females) They discriminate and it shouldn’t be legal.
@Joseph: I actually used to check out Cindy Crawford’s magazine ads when I was a teenager to try and figure out what makup colors would work with my chocolate brown skin. I was so sad when Revlon dropped her because at least she had brown eyes.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 11:44 pm ¶
Paul wrote:
In reagrd to the point about gay men
s influence on fashion, compare the models in magazines like FHM, Maxim, et al. with those in fashion magazines. The former are targetted to straight men and the latter to women and gay men. In general, the men’s magazine models are curvier and less boyish. Why, because most straight men like women with breasts and bottoms.
Posted 15 May 2008 at 8:03 am ¶
Persia wrote:
The thing I really don’t seem to understand the most is the allegations that black models don’t have the right body for fashion, and that they are too sexual (and that “Asian girls” have the perfect body for it). To me that is ridiculous to just lump people by race like that. There are plenty of thin and curvy black women, and plenty of thin and curvy white women, plenty of thin and curvy Asian women, and so on
There’s also a terrible generalization about Asian women in there– they’re not ’sexual,’ especially if they don’t have sufficient T & A.
Posted 15 May 2008 at 10:30 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
But are there more black women among them? There would have to be to support this woman’s thesis, and there just aren’t. Last I checked, Giselle, Adriana Lima and the like were also straight dude-approved. Additionally, if you look at the average pin-up model’s measurements, the only major difference between the women in mainstream lad mags and fashion models is that they’re shorter and have a larger cup size (often implants to coincide/contrast with their rail-thin frames) — curvy hips are still rare, Vida Guerra nonwithstanding. Mainstream straight male beauty standards for women as represented by lad mags aren’t very permissive at all, still exclude average-sized women as a matter of course, and aren’t that keen on celebrating the womanliness of black features.
Posted 15 May 2008 at 10:38 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
Oh, crap, I was addressing Paul in my last post.
Posted 15 May 2008 at 10:39 am ¶
Paul wrote:
DD,
Totally agree with you on the women of color angle. I was just stating that virtually all stright men that I know find the Beyonce/Mariah/Alba type much more attractive than the Kate Mossian waif type. I bet that if they let straight men design fashion, you’d see a lot more curvy women, maybe not totally average, but much more realistic.
Posted 15 May 2008 at 10:48 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Paul
but you have to keep in mind that even though many (and I do mean many, perhaps even most) of the top designers these days are gay men, gay men in fashion is nothing new. Halston, Christian Dior, Yves Saint Laruent, Tom Ford etc. were/are all gay, and the models that walked for them were not nearly as thin as they are now. In Cindy Crawford’s heyday, the sample size was a 6, now a size 4 is big for a sample size. Even Karl Lagerfeld wasn’t as rigid as he is now about seeing the bone on his models. Plus you also have to keep in mind that quite a few of the few top female designers are perpetuating this white washed trend too. Jourdan Dunn was the first black model to walk for Prada in like almost a decade, and Miuccia Prada is neither gay nor male. Lets not forget the two fashion magazine editors at the top of the food chain, Anna Wintour at American Vogue and Carinne Roitfeld at Paris Vogue, who are both so skinny that they seem to be in a contest to see which one will disappear first. (I think Anna’s in the lead).
However, and I’m gonna get slammed for this, but I think there is some credence to the gay fashion mafia stereotype, but I wouldn’t go as far as to attribute this current preference for “smooth boy” models to the gay fashion mafia’s homosexuality, because like I said before, it wasn’t always this way. But I do think that there is something about a lot of the current mafiosos, and they’ve decided that this is how it’s gonna be, and until they say otherwise, this is how it’s gonna be, because they set the tone. Like for example, Stefano Pilati, the head designer at YSL,who went on record bitching about how he had a black model as a house model and how he couldn’t fit clothes to her because she wasn’t thin and hipless enough because she was black. The irony in that is that Yves Saint Laurent was not only gay, but he was famous for using black models, so by discriminating, Pilati is betraying the spirit of the house. It really blew my mind when he said that too because I remember when Pilati took over YSL from Tom Ford who had retired, and people were like, “Aw, damn, YSL is gonna suck again” but then people really took notice of this one dress, that was the signature look of the spring 05′ collection, and it was plastered all over the magazines as evidence of why everyone could relax because Stefano was gonna hold it down, and YSL was not gonna suck again in the wake of Tom Ford’s departure. And who was sent down the runway in this one dress that made everyone take notice . . .
http://www.style.com/fashionshows/collections/S2005RTW/complete/slideshow/YSLRG?event=show1261&designer=design_house3&trend=&iphoto=15
Posted 15 May 2008 at 11:18 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
“If they let straight men design fashion”? Who’s stopping them, Paul? And like I said, I strongly disagree that straight men categorically desire women that are “curvy”. The average Playboy centerfold and the average model’s measurements only differ by an inch and a few cup sizes. If you don’t believe me, go look… the centerfolds traditionally disclose their measurements. Ralph Lauren and Tommy Hilfiger are straight men who have somehow been “allowed” by the omnipresent Gay Mafia (TM) to design clothing, and the models that they hire are not curvy by any definition. Daria Verbowy, Gisele Bundchen, Gemma Ward — the embodiment and “it girl” of the frail, doll-faced trend — Jessica Stam, Selita Ebanks… all of these women are big names that these men have hired, and they fit the modeling standard 34-25-34 to a T.
Posted 15 May 2008 at 1:27 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@DivergentDana; I was paraphrasing something my cousin told me years ago so it is entirely possible I oversimplified her argument and left out a “moment” in fashion that someone who is more knowledgeable would have factored in. But…aren’t we are saying the same thing? Wouldn’t “ambiguously ethnic” models (even Brazilian ones) still count as the overwhelming replacement for the African-American models who were once much more prevalent?
@Paul: Amen, brother re: breasts and bottoms. Although the argument about breast implants added to rail-thin frames is not wrong–you do see a lot more of those girls than you ever used to–but the body types in magazines aimed at men, while still idealized, are still far more realistically obtainable than the upwards of six feet tall and one-hundred pound frames favored by the fashion industry. I mentioned my cousin before but one thing I didn’t say was that my beautiful, tall, blonde, naturally slim cousin (the “golden mean” of American beauty aspired to by every little brown girl twirling around in her room with a yellow towel on her head) had to lose 15-20 pounds in order to work in fashion. This was not a young woman who had “extra” weight to lose…she was a normal (for her) healthy weight. But there was no way she’d work if she weren’t significantly underweight. In other words, even though her looks naturally fit the “ideal” of beauty in this country… that wasn’t good enough. I am not championing men’s magazines as bastions of female empowerment–that would be dumb for lots of reasons–but my general point still stands: do not starve away your secondary sex characteristics on our account ladies, we like them just fine.
However, blaming a powerful cabal of taste-making gay men for this problem just does not wash. There are gay people in every industry…no one is blaming gay accountants for unpopular changes in tax law. Yes, fashion is an industry that is very friendly to gay men and many designers are gay but so what? Homosexuality is no guarantee of misogyny. Not wanting to have sex with women is not the same thing as hating them, by a long stretch. Don’t get me wrong: I think the values of the fashion industry are grotesque. Fashion celebrates a personality type that is shallow, vain, mean, and more interested in surface than depth but, ugly stereotypes aside, none of that is central to being gay. And all the gay folks I know hate that stuff as much as I do.
@lowercase tasha: If you are looking for someone to “blame” then why not look to consumers? If women–of all races–are the demographic for this stuff then they (you) have the power to impact the industry, right? Just stop buying the freaking magazines. (Or, to have a real impact, the perfumes and accessories where designers really make their money.)
Posted 15 May 2008 at 3:44 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
There are four Black women on the Maxim 100 list. Four. Which I think is .04% of the list. Four, out of 100 women. That’s Maxim, and they like their women curvy, right. So what’s their excuse?
Posted 16 May 2008 at 12:53 am ¶
Whitney wrote:
@DivergentDana–Remember Gia Carangi? I think she started it all, what you were talking about, she came on the scene in the late 70s. Cindy Crawford was even nicknamed “Baby Gia.”
@Paul– Women in mens’ magazines are meant to be sexy and sexual, but fashion models on the runways and fashion magazines aren’t meant to be that way. Why do you think that just because a designer is gay, that he is going to want a model who looks like a boy? That’s a fairly bold comment to make. Maybe they simply feel that women who look like that look better in their sample sizes.
And please would everyone stop saying that the fashion industry is run by gay men? It’s not, and while there might be quite a few gay men, there are plenty of straight men like Roberto Cavalli, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Oscar de la Renta (Valentino was straight too but he passed away a long time ago). And there are a lot of female designers, like Donatella Versace, Betsey Johnson, Monique Lhuillier, etc.
Posted 16 May 2008 at 2:20 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
“And please would everyone stop saying that the fashion industry is run by gay men? It’s not, and while there might be quite a few gay men, there are plenty of straight men like Roberto Cavalli, Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Oscar de la Renta (Valentino was straight too but he passed away a long time ago). And there are a lot of female designers, like Donatella Versace, Betsey Johnson, Monique Lhuillier, etc.”
@Whitney
Valentino Garavani is neither straight nor dead. And I see your Cavalli, TH, RL, Oscar, Donatella, Monique and Betsey, and I raise you, Stefano Pilati (YSL), Peter Som, Thakoon Panichgul, Francisco Costa (Calvin Klein), Narcisso Rodriguez, and Jack and Lazarro (Proenza Schouler)
Posted 16 May 2008 at 7:18 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
And guessing by the women regularly chosen for these lists Michelle — models, actresses and other entertainers — the body sizes probably aren’t that diverse either, unless size 6 counts as a full-figured/zaftig woman, ala ‘Devil Wears Prada’.
Posted 16 May 2008 at 8:22 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
*clicks on Maxim ‘Hot 1oo list’, is confronted with prominent pic of Tila Tequila in an open kimono with a sword* Her last name is Nguyen, people!
Posted 16 May 2008 at 8:37 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Divergent Diva
but her stage surname is Tequila, not Ngygen
@Joseph
if you don’t consume, do you have a right to complain? It really is a catch 22 because if you don’t consume, the powers that be can say, “Why be diverse? you don’t consume anyway.” but by consuming, you are endorsing the status quo by default. And black women do consume, to the tune of 20 billion annually on apparel, according to the NYT. So don’t let them tell you otherwise. There was a link posted not too long ago on this site about Oluchi Onweagba and how, even though she is a renown international supermodel, she was considered too black to be on the cover of a fashion magazine in South Africa. Now until black South Africans start gaining more purchasing power and wielding more economic muscle, that’s unlikely to change. Look at Brazil. Brazil has the largest black population outside of Africa. The black Brazilian population even outnumbers the white Brazilian populous, yet the Brazilians in the telenovelas and on the covers on the fashion magazines are white Brazilians. Diversity is so lacking in the media there, that quotas are being legislated, but again, who buys the magazines? I suspect an overwhelmingly white Brazilian consumer base, and that’s likely to remain the case until black Brazilians become more economically empowered. And starting your own fashion print glossy isn’t as easy as it sounds. It’s been done. The last attempt in the US, Vibe Vixen folded after less than a year. Before that, it was “Suede”, which folded after four issues, and it wasn’t because black women didn’t buy it. We bought it. It usually takes years for most magazines to become profitable, but apparently, a fashion magazine targeted to young, black women is too small of a niche to whether the storm.
“However, blaming a powerful cabal of taste-making gay men for this problem just does not wash”
But the “powerful cabal of taste-making gay men” do share fault for the white washed/rail thin trend, by virtue of being in positions of power. If the majority of the top labels were headed by straight, white men, I dare say that the “chorus” would likely chime in with harsh words about straight, white, male patriarchy and privilege. Are you reluctant to lay blame at the feet of the cabal, that heads a great many of the top labels, for their part in the white washed/ rail thin model trend, for fear of sounding homophobic? The fact that they are gay, may very well be a coincidence. However, their being gay shouldn’t absolve them of blame. They are as much to blame as the straight white men and the female design heads that perpetuate the trend, as well as the casting directors and the magazine editors. Lets not sit here and pretend that you can head a major fashion label and yet have no power in influencing the choice of models selected to display your clothes.
Posted 16 May 2008 at 10:22 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Divergent Dana, not Diva, although you may very well be a diva
Posted 16 May 2008 at 10:23 am ¶
Persia wrote:
One additional thought: Watching Project Runway is always a reminder of how little high fashion considers the women in the clothing. It’s more like high art with fabric. I think one of the reasons the stick-skinny models are currently popular is for this reason– it’s much easier to design something that hangs on a twig than to design for a curvy woman, especially as curvy women have more variables in terms of size and shape.
their being gay shouldn’t absolve them of blame. They are as much to blame as the straight white men and the female design heads that perpetuate the trend, as well as the casting directors and the magazine editors
tasha, you make a good point, but the other side of that point is that I never hear this weird psychosexual criticism of women and straight white men in fashion– it’s always ‘gay men looking for boys.’
Posted 16 May 2008 at 11:13 am ¶
DivergentDana wrote:
But tasha, they’re depicting her in the photoshoot as if she weren’t Vietnamese-American, but Japanese-American, or just Japanese in order to fetishize her race using iconography that is readily familiar to your average American Joe & perhaps implying a conflated, pan-Asian identity which many non-Asians already have a difficult time realizing is uncommon. That’s one of the reasons why non-Asian men feel able to make sweeping generalizations about “what Asian women’s personalities are like” due to “their” culture. And don’t worry… I’ve seen people get all persnickety about their handle/screenname before, and that’s not my bag. Plus, I kinda like it.
And tasha, coincidentally, I read in a study that when it comes to Vogue and Cosmo, black women already compose their share of these publications’ readership when it comes to population percentages of women vs. percentage of sales…. so these magazines really have a reason to pop open a can of GiveADamn — that, and these women have the power to exert some pressure.
Posted 16 May 2008 at 1:22 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@ lowercase tasha
You make an excellent point about the way capitalism works, or doesn’t…I was making a simple argument about a complex problem. It does seem like a catch-22, doesn’t it? You have to be a consumer to impact the market but as long as the stuff sells there is no impetus to change it.
But I still don’t see how whether fashion designers are gay or not has anything to do with anything. I bet most of them have brown hair too but I seriously doubt there is a brunette conspiracy to exclude women of color and convince white women they have to starve themselves in order to “fit.” I am being silly on purpose because I think the argument is silly. It is also familiar: it is the same one that goes “Most of the inmates in US prisons are Black, therefore Black people are more likely to be criminals” or “Most terrorists are Muslims, therefore Muslims are more likely to be terrorists.” This is the kind of circular reasoning conservatives live for and it depends on a stereotype to make it work. Discount the stereotype and the argument falls apart. So if you think gay guys are a combination of center square Paul Lynde and a wolverine then, sure lay the whole thing at their feet. But c’mon…
Listen , I’m not an idiot– I’ll grant you that the fashion industry seems like a giant machine that runs on misogyny and self-loathing (codenamed “fabulousness”)…but it makes no sense to assert that the reason why is because a lot of gay guys work there. Do you really think that would change if a different group were in charge? If it were straight men? Or even women? It’s a business model, not a sexual preference or a social manifesto.
The real question is: how can you impact the business model?
Posted 16 May 2008 at 1:38 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
@lowercase tasha–*smacks head* I got him confused with someone else. My bad.
I did say that although there are a large number of gay men in fashion, it is not ALL gay men, which seems to be the belief of many people. My point was that the fashion industry isn’t run by only gay men and that there are plenty of influential straight men as well as women.
I also think that it is extremely unfair to blame gay men on the reason for thin models because they look boyish. None of the gay men I am friends with like that look on women, nor do find the boyish look attractive. The fact is that couture and high fashion is simply meant to be on small bodies. Coming from a woman who isn’t small, I don’t find this unfair. It’s just how that industry. Should I complain about brands in the petite department? No.
Posted 17 May 2008 at 8:03 am ¶
Whitney wrote:
*ahem* I meant to say, that’s just how the high fashion industry is, not “it’s just how that industry.” Another thing is that a lot of fashion insiders argue that the reason why runway models are thinner is because of the sample size of clothes, and they’re made that way to save fabric. I call BS on that; I think that’s just an excuse.
BTW, I do think that it’s pretty awesome that Whitney won ANTM, even though I didn’t like her at all, (I was rooting for Fatima or Anya), because she is a “plus-size” (read: normal woman) model.
Posted 17 May 2008 at 8:39 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
I have to say, gay or straight, male or female, women with African features are not as valuable in our Western society as women with other features.
I think that we can look around and find that it is true. Look at the beautiful sexy women in film, TV and fashion. How many of them rock natural hair that is also naturally kinky? Or do most of them have weaves? How many are on the arm of the rich and famous? How many are exalted for their beauty and sexuality?
I just don’t think we should blame gay men for not taking on the beauty standards of the entire Western world. They did not create the standards and I would hazard to say that many of the high fashion designers are a part of the small changes that we have seen over the years.
Posted 17 May 2008 at 4:42 pm ¶
gorgeous black women wrote:
I love how this article is unintentionally offensive to black and Asian women. As many of you have pointed out, Asians do not rule the fashion industry despite their “uncurvy, boyish” figures.
Models are genetic freaks. There is not one race with all the desirable traits of models. When I look through modeling sites, I see chronically under-employed black and Asian models with the same 5′8″+, size 0/2, slim hipped, curve-free frames. High cheek bones? Check. Long legs? Check. If I recall correctly, the average white American woman is 5′4″, 140+ lbs and pear shaped. The models that dominate the fashion industry are much taller and slimmer. Spare us the long story and just state the problem: some industry people don’t want to see women of color. End. Of. Story. My response to it is to not buy from those designers. This may come as a major shock to the industry but black and Asian women make up a big chunk of their customer base. If these companies don’t think models of color should model their clothes then women of color need to stop buying from those designers.
My YSL Tribute fund went towards a gorgeous cocktail dress after Stephen Pilati’s comments about the excessive curviness of black models for his line. My huge t&a’s might knock me off balance in those 5 inch heels anyway.
Posted 19 May 2008 at 5:11 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:
@gorgeous black woman–”some industry people don’t want to see women of color. End. Of. Story. My response to it is to not buy from those designers. This may come as a major shock to the industry but black and Asian women make up a big chunk of their customer base. If these companies don’t think models of color should model their clothes then women of color need to stop buying from those designers.”
Bingo.
I live in an area that is mostly Asian, and I see it all the time: A lot of Asian women do indeed wear designer clothes and accessories. I think that if the industry’s refusal to use women of color offends them, then they should stop buying from those designers.
“YSL Tribute [shoes]” ZOMG! Those shoes are gorgeous! But what’s better? Sticking with what you believe in, or a pair of ridiculously expensive (albeit gorgeous) shoes? I go for the former. I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs.
Posted 21 May 2008 at 6:18 am ¶
Whitney wrote:
I should add, the refusal to use women of color offends *me* as well, so I will continue to not be able to afford designer fashion, and thus, not buy it
(Although if I could afford it, I still wouldn’t buy it because of that.)
Posted 21 May 2008 at 6:19 am ¶
VitaminCPingu wrote:
Nah, black people are beautiful. You can’t look towards stupid beauty magazines for validation. Be strong and fruitful in who you are and do good in your life. You have quite a few good actors, artists, etc. out there that are good role models and are more significant than Vogue.
See my youtube vid on black models:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0KXSd5MjGs
Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 10:52 pm ¶