Victoria's Secret models have been getting a bit of a hard time in the press over the last few days. The main reason for this is that they are, apparently, not positive female role models for young girls. Parading around in one's underwear for a living apparently is not a good example to give.
My first instinct was to agree with Dr Brooke Magnati (formerly blogger and London call girl Belle De Jour) when she argued in the Telegraph that there wasn't an obligation, formal or implied, for women in the public eye to be good role models. One of my grandfather's aphorisms sprang to mind, "You will never be a total failure. You can always serve as a bad example."
However this doesn't quite tally with how I feel. I agree, there's no obligation to be a good role model but, looking beyond that, what is a good role model? Could Victoria's Secret models in fact be rather good role models? As a working definition, let's call a role model an individual that sets an example which you would wish to follow or you would advise someone you care about to follow. It's simplistic but it will do. The most important part of it is that allows an individual to project their own morals and beliefs on to a situation.
One of the arguments against Victoria's Secret models is that women should be judged on more than their looks and using pretty girls to promote a brand is just shallow. Taking the second part of that statement first; they have a point. Using pretty girls to flog a product (even one designed for women) is a bit shallow. I'm sure there's lots of complex sociology and psychology behind the next statement but to put it simply; adverts don't just sell products, they sell an idea associated with the products therefore people who buy Victoria's Secret knickers are buying the idea that the product will make them more like the model, not just a pair of knickers. It's that simple and it's fairly immobile as a concept. As such, the use of beautiful women to promote the brand is unlikely to change any time soon. It's not nice but there's not an awful lot we can do about it.
Now to the first bit of the statement. Girls shouldn't be judged solely on their bodies. Fair enough. That's an admirable enough sentiment. However, here's a small point. Has anyone actually asked the models how they feel about their occupation? Or have commentators condescendingly assumed that because they wear knickers for a living they must be feeble, air-headed, bimbos who are totally incapable of looking after themselves and need us to watch out for them? Does their choice of occupation imply they are incapable of any kind of thought?
What if the models, if asked, tell us that they are happy, content, fulfilled and satisfied with their life and their job? They tell us that they enjoy what they do and they make a reasonable to good living out of it? That wouldn't be such a bad thing would it? In fact, I would argue that it would make them rather envious of them. How many of us can say that we are totally satisfied and fulfilled with our jobs (let's call it the lottery test; if you won the lottery, would you continue in your current role?) And if these girls can say that about their occupation then who are we to tell them that they're wrong?
Even if they can't say, hand on heart, that all of the above apply to their occupation dare we ask them if it's worth the pay-off? Again, with everyone else, we put up with a certain amount of unpleasantness in our occupations in return for a bigger pay-off (usually, let's be honest, the salary) so why shouldn't the models be allowed to weigh up the options and come to their own conclusion?
All that said, if I had a daughter I'm not sure I would be entirely comfortable with them following this line of work. I know times have changed but I still think underwear is called UNDERwear for a reason. Then there's the inevitable sleaze aspect; the outfits are by nature revealing and are frequently leered at.
That last point I want to tackle is the frequent assertion that the industry is unfair because it is only open to beautiful women. Again, this is indisputably true. The industry has specific requirements it desires in their employees and these are only fulfilled by pretty girls. But this fact is true of many industries; musicians are generally recruited from talented musicians, sports "heroes" are generally good athletes and mathematicians are generally recruited from those that are good at maths. I have taken those examples as they are all generally innate rather than taught as is beauty. Discriminating against someone because of the way they are born in uniformly unfair and this includes preventing beautiful women from choosing to make a living from their looks. If they go into it by choice and with there eyes open, where's the problem... beyond perhaps jealousy.
JR
My first instinct was to agree with Dr Brooke Magnati (formerly blogger and London call girl Belle De Jour) when she argued in the Telegraph that there wasn't an obligation, formal or implied, for women in the public eye to be good role models. One of my grandfather's aphorisms sprang to mind, "You will never be a total failure. You can always serve as a bad example."
However this doesn't quite tally with how I feel. I agree, there's no obligation to be a good role model but, looking beyond that, what is a good role model? Could Victoria's Secret models in fact be rather good role models? As a working definition, let's call a role model an individual that sets an example which you would wish to follow or you would advise someone you care about to follow. It's simplistic but it will do. The most important part of it is that allows an individual to project their own morals and beliefs on to a situation.
One of the arguments against Victoria's Secret models is that women should be judged on more than their looks and using pretty girls to promote a brand is just shallow. Taking the second part of that statement first; they have a point. Using pretty girls to flog a product (even one designed for women) is a bit shallow. I'm sure there's lots of complex sociology and psychology behind the next statement but to put it simply; adverts don't just sell products, they sell an idea associated with the products therefore people who buy Victoria's Secret knickers are buying the idea that the product will make them more like the model, not just a pair of knickers. It's that simple and it's fairly immobile as a concept. As such, the use of beautiful women to promote the brand is unlikely to change any time soon. It's not nice but there's not an awful lot we can do about it.
Now to the first bit of the statement. Girls shouldn't be judged solely on their bodies. Fair enough. That's an admirable enough sentiment. However, here's a small point. Has anyone actually asked the models how they feel about their occupation? Or have commentators condescendingly assumed that because they wear knickers for a living they must be feeble, air-headed, bimbos who are totally incapable of looking after themselves and need us to watch out for them? Does their choice of occupation imply they are incapable of any kind of thought?
What if the models, if asked, tell us that they are happy, content, fulfilled and satisfied with their life and their job? They tell us that they enjoy what they do and they make a reasonable to good living out of it? That wouldn't be such a bad thing would it? In fact, I would argue that it would make them rather envious of them. How many of us can say that we are totally satisfied and fulfilled with our jobs (let's call it the lottery test; if you won the lottery, would you continue in your current role?) And if these girls can say that about their occupation then who are we to tell them that they're wrong?
Even if they can't say, hand on heart, that all of the above apply to their occupation dare we ask them if it's worth the pay-off? Again, with everyone else, we put up with a certain amount of unpleasantness in our occupations in return for a bigger pay-off (usually, let's be honest, the salary) so why shouldn't the models be allowed to weigh up the options and come to their own conclusion?
All that said, if I had a daughter I'm not sure I would be entirely comfortable with them following this line of work. I know times have changed but I still think underwear is called UNDERwear for a reason. Then there's the inevitable sleaze aspect; the outfits are by nature revealing and are frequently leered at.
That last point I want to tackle is the frequent assertion that the industry is unfair because it is only open to beautiful women. Again, this is indisputably true. The industry has specific requirements it desires in their employees and these are only fulfilled by pretty girls. But this fact is true of many industries; musicians are generally recruited from talented musicians, sports "heroes" are generally good athletes and mathematicians are generally recruited from those that are good at maths. I have taken those examples as they are all generally innate rather than taught as is beauty. Discriminating against someone because of the way they are born in uniformly unfair and this includes preventing beautiful women from choosing to make a living from their looks. If they go into it by choice and with there eyes open, where's the problem... beyond perhaps jealousy.
JR
No comments:
Post a Comment