We all know that models have been getting skinnier and skinnier over the past twenty years. We all know that bone-thin women are neither healthy nor sexy, yet models have just kept getting thinner and thinner, and it really is hard to understand why. Rail-thin models were originally considered ideal because they could act like coat-hangers on the catwalk - their small frames would allow you to better appreciate the cut of the clothing. But somehow the idea that bone-thin is the ideal shape for a woman infected the mainstream, and ever since models seem to keep getting smaller and smaller.
Check out this wonderful piece in the Observer Women’s magazine, which explores the idea that models have also been getting thinner because their status in the world of fashion has diminished. The author explains her point so well, I’ll just quote some extracts:
Raise the issue of eating disorders during Fashion Week, and someone will inevitably bring up that lost, glorious era of the supermodel: Christy, Naomi, Cindy, Linda, the four-headed stompy-legged beast with big shiny hair, the one that wouldn’t get out of bed for less than $10,000. Those were the days when models took up space. They were stars. They made demands. And their faces were everywhere. To paraphrase from Sunset Boulevard, sometimes it feels like it’s not the clothes that have got small, it’s the models.
Nowadays, it seems that the most common faces you see in magazines and catwalks are Eastern European girls, often from poor backgrounds with little education, who are easily exploited by their powerful agencies in Paris and New York. They are often faced with the choice of either losing as much weight as possible, or losing work.
One of the interesting things about these models today is that they get used and spit out so quickly,’ says Magali Amadei, a model who has been open about her recovery from bulimia. ‘The era of the supermodel is over, so girls working today don’t have the earning power. These girls come into the business young, and they are disposable. On top of that, people often talk about your appearance in front of you, as if you can’t hear them.’
…
‘It’s a far more complex issue than people realise,’ Suzy Menkes, the British fashion writer for the International Herald Tribune, told me. ‘You know, many of these girls were brought up in the postcommunist years on an extremely bad diet. From childhood, they’ve not been properly nourished. That may make them very appealing to designers, but they don’t start off with a healthy body. And nothing is simple. I think it must be incredibly difficult to come from a vegetable stall in the Ukraine and find yourself in Paris among Ladurée macaroons. People have to accept that it’s a much bigger picture than terrible fashion folk starving to get into frocks.’
…
If Fashion Week is about reinforcing hierarchies, skinniness has always been a way to compete. Being thin means control and, symbolically, that you are rich, that you are young, that you are beautiful, that you are powerful. And yet…the models themselves, who are skinnier and younger than anyone, can seem like the weakest people here: manual labourers with short working lives. And whatever their eating habits, the girls in the gowns attract, like anorexics, an unstable mix of envy, anxiety, and scorn, a cultural response reserved for women reduced (or maybe elevated) to their bodies.
And for observers of the catwalk, there remains the nagging question: why this skinny? And why now? I hear two dominant theories. The first is that fashion is aspirational. There’s make-up; there’s lighting; it is intended to be extreme, not realistic - to inspire envy. The other theory is that the girls need to be skinny because they need to be invisible. Clothing stands out best when the body is a blank. And the better the clothes are, the more extreme the skinniness must be. But, of course, these two explanations are diametrically opposed. In the first vision, the models must be thin so people look at them. In the second, they must be thin so that no one will notice them. And when I ask the buyers and the customers, they seem baffled about the reason for it all.
…
And isn’t there something a little creepy about using teenage girls from poor countries to model gowns that get bought mainly by incredibly wealthy adult women?
There’s one more point that the author doesn’t make, although she comes very close to it. When you look at it this way - poor, naive, young girls brought from former eastern bloc countries to work long hours, in incredibly unhealthy conditions, with little ability to get into another line of work - it really is just another form of human trafficking.


Digg
13 comments
There's also the fact that very thin women are less aggressively sexual (compared to a woman with hips and boobs and all that womanly stuff) so it adds to the invisibility factor.
It's kind of like making these no-name immigrant girls less important than the clothes they wear, which is kind of dumb. But given the choice between living poor and hungry, or rich and hungry, rich seems to be the better option. At least they're doing a little better?
Posted by Sarah
October 4, 2007, 1:50 PM
It's interesting to look at modeling as a labour issue, which I don't think is done often enough, if ever.
Posted by Nicole
October 4, 2007, 2:43 PM
This is a really interesting topic and quite disturbing. Beautiful women are generally seen as powerful but little inspected is the fact that if your power totally centers on others' conceptions of beauty, it's actually extremely precarious, and maybe not all that powerful.
At the same time I'm not crazy about the language in the Observer article. It's quite disempowering - and that stuff about going from a vegetable stall to macaroons just sounds condescending. I think it's bad enough that these women's jobs dehumanise them so much (turning them into walking clothes hangers!) so to have them painted as having so little agency seems sweeping and insensitive.
Sarah - I would agree that it is better to have a little money than to be hungry, but it's not right that these are the conditions under which the girls can make money. To me that kind of situation, where people have to go into jobs that are dehumanising or work in unsafe/dangerous conditions, exploits poverty. A system that capitalises on desperation is a messed up.
Posted by Thea
October 5, 2007, 7:08 AM
Thea- I was just saying that it's warped that a job like this is the best option for them instead of things working together to help get them out of poverty in a more productive manner, instead of exploitation.
Posted by Sarah
October 5, 2007, 10:23 AM
I am just wondering...all these people who write about "poor, uneducated" Eastern European girls, have they actually visited Eastern Europe? I have never met an European that would be poorer and less educated than an average American. I would like to know where these writers get their information from!
Posted by Magda
October 11, 2007, 7:38 AM
Hi Magda, I agree with you (up there!) - I found the language in the article really disempowering and disrespectful. It does seem to be true that some Eastern European countries are less wealthy than Western European or North American countries, and that these wealtheir countries exploit that, and the cheaper labour source - at the same time I felt that the writer didn't need to characterise the workers in such a helpless way.
Posted by Thea
October 11, 2007, 9:35 AM
I would have been shocked to read, "We all know that bone-thin women are neither healthy nor sexy" anywhere, but am especially so reading it here on Shameless.
While there is nothing healthy nor sexy about eating disorders or compromising yourself in any way in the name of trying to fit into a ridiculous societal ideal, may I remind you of the many woman (and men) who are naturally "bone-thin" and perfectly healthy, not to mention sexy. For the record, I am not one--in fact, I fall on the other end of the spectrum that is traditionally considered to be neither healthy nor sexy--but a good example is my best friend who is 5'9" and wears a size 0. This is her natural body type and she is perfectly healthy, and incedunly sexy; not because she is bone-thin, but because she is smart, strong and sassy.
The very community that you are critiquing in the above posts tells larger women and girls, like me, that we are not sexy every single day; so I know what it's like... but I have grown to expect such behaviour from them. The last thing I would have expected from anyone in the feminist community is such a careless slip of the tongue.
In short: shameless, I am ashamed.
Posted by Amanda
October 12, 2007, 7:35 AM
I have to agree with you, Amanda. To say skinny women are not sexy is counterproductive. As someone who was called "chicken legs" throughout high school, I think the body judgments can certinly exist on both sides of the spectrum.
Posted by Stacey May
October 12, 2007, 7:52 AM
Hi Everyone. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here, on two counts:
1. I'm not saying that ALL Eastern European women are uneducated or poor (nor I think, for that matter, is the author of the Observer piece). I'm pointing out that the industry preys on uneducated and poor women, often those who happen to be from Eastern Europe. That part of the world being home to many women who a) have certain physical features the industry desires (white, blonde, wide-set eyes, strong cheekbones, etc), and b) are often uneducated and easily exploited. Nobody here was suggested that all Eastern European women are uneducated. The article is talking about the Eastern European women in the fashion industry - not ALL Eastern European women.
And
2. Amanda and Stacey, I understand your concern, but I did not make a "careless slip of the tongue" I'll say it again: Bone-thin women are neither healthy nor sexy. I'm not saying skinny women are unsexy - I'm saying women who have starved themselves into oblivion on purpose are unsexy.
Women who lack love for themselves and for life are neither healthy nor sexy. Women who are prone to fractures, tooth decay, hair loss, and organ failure are neither healthy not sexy. One of my friends was so emaciated by anorexia that her kidneys almost stopped working, and she was told she would never, ever be able to conceive children. It was heartbreaking, and it was not pretty.
I am NOT saying all skinny women are unhealthy or unsexy, ok? For the record, everything in my closet ranges size zero to size 2. My friends are constantly telling me to put on weight, my breasts are very small, and my ass is frequently lambasted for being too bony.
But am I still sexy? Hell yes.
I don't think large or small is sexy. It's about being confident, sassy, and strong - and looking after your body, because it's the most amazing tool you'll ever have.
Posted by Zoe
October 12, 2007, 12:28 PM
Zoe, I think we are are on the same page. My concern is not that you don't think skinny woman are sexy--but that the naturally thin 15 year old girl reading your post could easily become one of the latter category. There is a huge difference between "bone-thin women are not sexy" and "women who lack love for themselves and for life are neither healthy nor sexy" or "woman who are prone to fractures, tooth decay, hair loss and organ failure are neither healthy nor sexy", and I think it is important to make that distinction.
Posted by Amanda
October 12, 2007, 7:30 PM
As a guy who just discovered this page, I have to say that this entry was very eye-opening. In popular culture, a supermajority of all events become simplified - all the complexity, that bastion of free thought, is gone. So the ideas of viewing models in the same vein as day laborers in Vacaville, California, is intriguing and has merit.
If you are familiar with the second season of the critically-acclaimed show "The Wire", you will have seen how trafficking of women from Eastern Europe is countenanced by many in our society was brought into the zeitgeist of America. Unfortunately, this subject is not broached in the traditional media. They are too busy complaining about Barack Obama's lack of a flag pin, Hillary Rodham Clinton's new haircut, or some celebrity's latest malfeasance with the law.
My girlfriend recently discovered how American Apparel treats their models like indentured sex-slaves, and it begs the question, when will our society friggin' wake up? Have we forgotten to ask ourselves, "What if that was my sister/mother/daughter?"
Posted by Tony Mendocino
October 13, 2007, 12:58 AM
Bone-thin the beauty ideal? Yeah, right. Where I live(near St. Louis) the guys are obsessed with big shapely J.Lo types. Also, everyone makes a big thing about models being so skinny(which I understand) but what about the fact that they are always so tall? Hello? Where are the short models? Do these modelling agencies think we petite women are not attractive? Am I the only one who is bothered by this?
Posted by Sexy Sadie
November 1, 2007, 4:42 PM
I really don't understand fashion marketing as a whole! Are we trying to be attractive to men or other women?! Some of these models like Juicy models look like little boys. Sure women hate having too much curve here and there but if you ask a man you will get nothing but compliments! Also I don't get why if you are a lingerie model you must be curvy and if you are modeling clothes you must be super thin. So are we saying that only curvy girls are meant to sit around in bikinis all day while thin ladies are allowed to remain clothed? They do say that runway models are supposed to represent a hanger. Well I believe that the hanger is where those clothes will stay...
I am a designer wannabe and I would like to make a clothing line that real women can wear and by that I don't mean plus size I just mean women.
Posted by Crystal Mullen
May 19, 2008, 4:19 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.