In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Worker’s right to not starve to death for the job

I received a note reminding me to introduce myself. So here it goes. I’m Trudi Evans. I hail from Nova Scotia, Canada. I volunteer with an organization that works on body image, self-esteem, and eating disorders issues. I publish an online magazine (shameless plug). I’m fumbling through the whole publishing arena and making it a viable business with great plans to grow from that one publication into a feminist publishing house with an aggressive marketing department and a woman-focused workplace. Right now, I work in various rooms of my home, share my keyboard with my cat, raise a child, smooch on my partner, and chase the squirrels out of my teeny tiny garden. And feel a lot of pressure to blog interesting things here at Feministe.

 On with the show…

The modeling industry has been under scrutiny for pushing models to attain unnatural thinness by any means, and in the end, seeing them die for their profession. So what’s a government to do to protect its workers? Investigate the models instead of the industry, of course.

In Britain, there was a proposal to ban all models who wear a size 0. It was determined that would not be suitable because the naturally thin among them would be discriminated against. Instead, they should look at female models and what they are doing to themselves. In order to retain a contract or get a new gig, a model must meet the standards set out by the company hiring her.

From The Independent Online Edition:

In the UK, the British Fashion Council (BFC) has tried to deflect the heat attached to its refusal to ban size-zero models from the catwalks at next month’s London Fashion Week by setting up an independent inquiry into models’ health.

Grand is among the scores of fashion world insiders who have given evidence to the inquiry, which is chaired by Baroness Kingsmill. The final report, due out within days, is not expected to reverse the BFC’s stance on size zero. Grand says it is difficult to ban models like Gisele, the Brazilian supermodel who “eats and drinks an enviable amount” yet still maintains a physique that most women long to attain.

Why doesn’t the government investigate the standards set out by the industry instead of holding blame to the workers for trying to attain them?

This isn’t an original question. Beth Ditto beat me to the punch, and I’m glad she did. If you don’t know who Beth is, she’s the lead singer of The Gossip and an accidental spokesperson for sizeism in Britain. American by birthand making headlines fairly regularly, she speakas out against the beauty standards that she sees as being detrimental to women everywhere.

Ditto was quoted as calling the modeling industry ‘brutal and abnormal’. In any other industry, we would start to look at the workplace for issues concerning safety and the wellbeing of the workers. Standards would be implemented and followed up on by regular inspections. But we don’t call these women workers, we call them models. And most people don’t give a damn if they die for their jobs. And yet this is who many of our girls aspire to be.

Instead of being appreciated for what they achieve, women get “bombarded with photos of girls with bodies that so, so, so few have, in clothes that will never fit and that you will never be able to afford”.

It’s not news that the modeling industry needs to be overhauled. It would be news if we got behind the models and really supported them. Fat or thin, no one needs to discriminated against in the workplace. It would be revolutionary to not pass judgment on what they do or why they do it, and support them in their rights to have a safe work environment.

And to what Beth said, all I have to say is, ditto.


21 thoughts on Worker’s right to not starve to death for the job

  1. It’s ridiculous that there’s even a size zero. WTF kind of measurements make a size zero? That’s why it’s so hard to find clothes that fit and why you have to try nearly every single piece of clothing on to make sure it fits, even if it says it’s the exact size as the clothing you’re wearing at the time. The while fugging industry is just insane, and it’s making everyone insane.

  2. There are women who are “naturally” that thin, but I think the majority have to starve themselves to get to a size 0.

    My idea is that the government should be regulating the average size of the models (say, in a particular show), not the minimum size. That might encourage the agencies to have a variety of models on a slightly wider spectrum of body shapes than currently exists. And it cuts off the criticism that models like Gisele are healthy and just happen to be that size. Sure, book Gisele, and then book a few more women of a few different sizes.

    I’m sure that wouldn’t fly with the industry, though.

  3. This wouldn’t be an issue if modeling weren’t held up to young girls as such a desirable career. It’s like boys chasing the dream of pro sports stardom. How about encouraging kids to use their brains once in a while?

  4. The thing I don’t understand is… runway doesn’t pay well unless you’re one of the few top models. (You can’t live on what Vogue pays models, but you CAN live on being in JCPenney.) I feel like maybe putting an age restriction on the models might help. Maybe if the models are a little older and have more serious expenses (if not necessarily more wisdom), they’ll be less inclined to starve themselves for a pittance?

    It’s ridiculous that there’s even a size zero. WTF kind of measurements make a size zero?

    5’0″, 98lbs, 32a-23-33 = my particular version of a what gets billed as a size 0 (or… a 00 in some places, apparently.) It might be that EVERY size feels that they’re the most maligned but shopping for a zero sucks.

  5. Nicole:
    In industry sizing (pattern industry) you’d be a size 6. Maybe a 4 depending on a couple of factors — you are in the petite range, but your shoulder structure could be the determining factor as to which size pattern I’d use for you. And which pattern company. 😉 For the interested, I find that Vogue is the truest to their pattern sizes, without scads of extra ease that you may not want there.

    I’m not trying to make you feel bad or anything, or dispute the sizes that fit you personally; just pointing out the disconnect between industry sizing and retail sizing. In the end, it’s all just numbers. What matters is, does the damn thing fit?!?

    /personal reply 😉

    The retail fashion world is out to get us. ALL of us. 😉 Retail stores vanity size clothing (slap smaller numbers on the clothing) and the more you pay, the smaller the number can be. I can wear a 14 – 16 in most clothing, but I’m *always* an 18 in a pattern. (And then I get to modify it for a large bust and a petite height, including the sleeve length. *sigh*)

    Shopping at any size sucks. Just TRY finding clothes that fit when you are a 14-16 petite with a *D cup*. 😛 I thank all the Powers That Be that I sew and can at least alter retail to look a little better on me when I can’t take the time to sew my own clothes.

    Re: print modeling
    Photography does add visual “weight” since it’s taking a 3-D form and squashing it onto a 2-D medium. No binocular perspective for depth, so something that is round just looks wide. But I’d say many, many print models (not just the high fashion ones) are far too thin for health. I’ve met some screen actresses in person, and honestly? They look like they’d break if you bumped into them wrong. (Gigi Edgely, Chiana from Farscape, is the one I’m thinking about in particular. She looked very curvy on the show. It was either weight she lost after the show or a HELL of an airbrush/makeup job.) And just as a reality check, most models are *not* 5’0″ and a size 0 — I think most of them are 5’6″ and up, as that’s the standard height used for most retail clothing. (AND a 3″ heel, but that’s another rant.) Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, anyone.

    The industry has got to be changed, but I think the only way to do it is to get people to stop buying the shit. Or at least get the models to unionize.** The problem is that very young women buy into this shit and there will always be another one willing to starve herself to fit the ideal. Maybe we could at least make them feel bad for crossing a picket line…

    Sorry for the disconnected ramblings. If any clothing issue really annoys me these days, it’s the — what would that be, deflation? — deflation of sizing coupled with the pressure to be the smallest size available even if your bone structure is completely unsuited to it. At my *thinnest*, and I was 105 lbs, in high school, I wouldn’t have fit Nicole’s size 0 jeans. 😉 (And I’m only 2 inches taller than you. Damned Scandahoovian genes!) As I do alterations for a lot of bridal gowns and attendants gowns, I get to hear/see a LOT of gals beat themselves up because they had to get the 4 instead of the 2. And it makes me very sad. And angry. And all I can do is try to convince them that the numbers don’t matter.

    Ooooooh, kay. Gonna stop rambling now since I’m getting ranty AND maudlin. Let me know if any of ya’ll come up with actual ideas for combating this shit.

    ** I’m only half joking here.

  6. Before the onslaught of vanity women’s clothing sizing, women’s clothing sizes were standardized. For example, a junior size 7 was 32-221/2-34. (From National Bureau of Standards Voluntary Product Standard PS 42-70, Body Measurements for the Sizing of Women’s Patterns and Apparel)
    http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Conformity/upload/womens-ps42-70.pdf

    In the early 70’s, the tiny wife of a classmate wore a size 1 in that measurement system.

  7. I accuse you of famously bad timing, yea, verily!

    I was going to go on (another) one of those tirades about how people need to get offa the modeling lawn, and how standards/laws/regulations are just another attempt to regulate women’s bodies (starving yourself silly, self-injury, various sex practices, smoking etc. may not be smart choices, but I believe they should exist as options), and how I feel being asked to watch your food consumption is not unreasonable in certain cases, just like asking pharmacists to hand out Plan B is not unreasonable — you wanted the job, now do it, or pick another.

    The trouble is, that feels like a weird statement to make after spending one week thinking, on and off, WTF is porno-Ren doing writing here!??, on the general grounds of, I accept that life isn’t perfect and that we sometimes make choices that may or may not be good for ourselves, but are potentially harmful to a lot of other women, so it seems fair to at least to lose (a lot of) feminist cred over it.

    IOW, I need to work out first whether framing publicly starving yourself as a personal choice whereas rejecting most to all porn on “harm to the community” grounds makes me a major asshole, and if so, if I can find it in me to stop that, so, no tirade this time. But hey, at least I got in a self-centered post, eh? ;-/

    (As a side-note though, the designation “sparklepony” amuses me no end for some reason. I can hazard a half-reasonable guess at what it’s supposed to mean, but can someone fill me in so I won’t have to guess? Just so I’ll know whether I’m one? 🙂

  8. Bitter Scribe – thanks – you’ve given me reason to quote Beth Ditto one more time! (I agree with you by the way).

    “No one shows you a photo of ‘Mama’ Cass and says, ‘See? She’s a genius and had an amazing music career’. Or a painting by Frida Kahlo and says, ‘ You can be a revolutionary with vision and a unibrow, and not only will you be loved, worshipped and acclaimed, but you will be remembered for work, timeless and outstanding’.”

  9. It’s ridiculous that there’s even a size zero. WTF kind of measurements make a size zero?

    Once upon a time, 20 years and 35 pounds ago, I was a size 0. Like Nicole, I was 5’0″, and 92 pounds. I wasn’t trying to be skinny (sigh — maybe if I had followed an exercise regiment I wouldn’t be 35 pounds heavier) and like her, I found it next to impossible to find clothes that fit. I could go with a size 1 or 2 in pants or skirts, because I have naturally wide hips and ass. But shoulders, bust and waist? forget it. sleeves were too long, shoulders sagged, so did waists in just about everything. I’ve come to the conclusion that most clothes are designed for the wide of shoulders and the narrow of hips.
    Nowadays is even more ridiculous. In the same store, the same brand, the same day, I bought a size 4 dress (!) and a size 10 skirt. what gives with the size variance?

  10. The Council of Fashion Designers American has a set of guidelines (warning, pdf) recently ratified to protect the health of models. They are “voluntary guidelines”, and as such not particularly toothy, but I’d be interested on your take on them. (They’ve been fairly widely criticized, notably by Robin Givhan who sometimes gets a bad rap in feminist circles (cf Hillary’s cleavage), but is pretty progressive on this issue.

    And I don’t see why models shouldn’t have a union. Actors do.

  11. Hector, women’s clothing sizes were only “standardized” in the 1940s, when the government had all sorts of women they could measure with impunity — the WACs and WAVEs. Who were often young and relatively athletic. Before then, pattern companies basically had their own measurement systems, and they could vary widely. As could, did, and do the systems that each clothing manufacturer used/uses.

    I did not yet download the information you posted, but you have obviously looked at it, so let me ask you this: how large is the increment between sizes? (Seriously, I’d like to know. I just don’t want to sit through a .pdf download right now.) These days there is an entire inch to inch and a half between pattern sizes. Given that system, your classmate’s wife would have had at most a 26″ full bust, and a 16 1/2″ waist. I suspect that was not the case, but I could be wrong. I’m also betting that she was truly *petite* — five feet tall or under. The models we are talking about are in general *considerably* taller than that.

    Vanity sizing in *retail* has been around for a long time. Wouldn’t be surprised if it had started in the 70s. I don’t remember, since my mom was buying my clothing at the time, and was appalled when I had to go into “half-sizes”/”chubbies”. Turns out I was just gearing up for a growth spurt (and needed to get outside and play more), but since I still recall the humiliation of shopping for said “chubbies”, maybe there is an underlying issue here, no? BTW, I hadn’t hit adolescence yet at that point, so that should point up how early the “must be thin” crap starts.

    The fact of the matter is that I can take standard (bust, waist, hip) measurements from 5 different women, get exactly the same numbers, and have 5 totally different body types standing in front of me. Standardized measurements don’t work for MOST of us, and the ones at the extremes of body size get shafted the hardest, since the fewest sales happen at those extremes. God forbid you HAVE the big bustline that is so desirable today. You either get shoulders that don’t fit, or buttons that gap. Your choice.

    Retail clothing is just evil, on many levels. And I don’t see a viable alternative to it. It takes TIME to make your own clothing, or MONEY to have someone else do it on a custom basis. At the very least, the women involved in the industry shouldn’t have to be starving themselves into poor health to be able to work.

  12. Oh, and by the way, Junior sizing is different from Misses sizing, which is different from Womens sizing. They are supposed to reflect the not quite “mature”/straighter, less curvy body type, the curvy but trim body type, and the older, “mature” body type that curves differently (notably with less indent at the waist, common in older women, especially those who’ve had children), respectively. Standard retail clothing these days is almost always Misses sizing unless you deliberately go into the Junior or Womens departments.

    Just more random, slightly useless information from Laurie. We return you to your regularly scheduled posts now.

  13. It’s ridiculous that there’s even a size zero. WTF kind of measurements make a size zero?

    Mine do. Maybe not according to proper size standardization, but these days it’s harder and harder to find a size 0 that isn’t too *big* for me, because they keep changing the sizing. And I’m not, contrary to what I often see implied about skinny women, freakish looking, anorexic, or unhealthy, and I do have a “woman’s body.” I’m going to assume that in asking that you mean that it’s ridiculous that the sizes have been manipulated so that there’s a size 0, rather than that it’s ridiculous that there are women in the world with bodies like mine?

  14. I’m going to assume that in asking that you mean that it’s ridiculous that the sizes have been manipulated so that there’s a size 0, rather than that it’s ridiculous that there are women in the world with bodies like mine?

    thistle:
    that was how I interpreted that statement, anyway, as being a “WTF?!” about the size designator, not the size of the person herself. Actually, it’s been helpful to me to hear from women who do wear that size as to what their measurements actually are. And it has confirmed what I’ve been asserting for years: there really isn’t any such thing as a size zero, it’s all been number manipulation by the industry. They can wring more money out of more people by sizing things the way they do. 😛 That pisses me off. The fact that you are simply a petite person who can’t find clothes that fit even IN that ridiculous sizing system also pisses me off. On your behalf.

    I swear, it’s just another way to get women to waste their time and come home tired, discouraged, and disgusted with their own bodies so they are too preoccupied to do anything else. I actually blame Capitalism for this one. Or Greed. Take your pick.

  15. The fact that you are simply a petite person who can’t find clothes that fit even IN that ridiculous sizing system also pisses me off. On your behalf.

    It pisses me off too, at times–but mostly for selfish reasons :p My size is probably far enough outside the mainstream that I can see how it might not make economic sense to make clothes that fit me (which is my only explanation for the dresses at Ann Taylor, which apparently hates me). What I find more bizarre is going into these boutique kind of stores and realizing that while they have clothes for me (that I can’t afford anyway) in abundance, they’ve got nothing over a size 8 or 10. Which given the average size of women in this country, is just hard to explain other than by hatred of average-sized women or some idea that by sending the message “thin women shop here!” they’ll be more successful, or some combination of the two. /off topic

  16. I’m going to assume that in asking that you mean that it’s ridiculous that the sizes have been manipulated so that there’s a size 0

    That’s it exactly. If a woman has smaller measurements than you, will she be a negative size? -1 or -2? Why can’t clothing size be based on actual body measurements, so at least it’d be easier to figure out what to look at when choosing clothes.

  17. That’s it exactly. If a woman has smaller measurements than you, will she be a negative size? -1 or -2? Why can’t clothing size be based on actual body measurements, so at least it’d be easier to figure out what to look at when choosing clothes.

    Sadly, I’ve heard of double zero — 00 — sized clothing. *sigh* Would love to know the measurements of women who fit those, too.

    I think the problem is that at some point in history, women were not ever supposed to let ANYONE know what their waist size actually was. Kind of like their age. 😛 Anyway, they came up with the funky numbering system to avoid the “your actual figure measurements on the tag” kind of thing. I have to assume it was because women didn’t want their sizes out for all the world (and the gossip queens) to see. Only no one stuck to the sizing charts because, well, they figured out that many women will pay more to have a smaller size on the tag. *sigh*

    The other part is that measurements lie, especially with women’s generally curved body planes. And the variance from woman to woman is a lot. So they standardized the sizes with “average” proportions. So the clothes don’t really fit much of anyone. 😛

  18. I was with a friend at some schmancy little boutique, and my friend liked the jeans she saw. They were size “27s”. My friend asked if it meant the waist size and the clerk said no, and couldn’t really tell us what it referred to (poor training, on top of an idiotic scheme). I don’t think they were European. The clerk ended up eyeballing my friend and a couple of pairs and said, “I think these will fit you.”

    This actually made me glad for the numbers that are usually used, because at least I can ballpark it…depending on the store I know I’ll be within three sizes.

Comments are currently closed.