top-50-models-l

Yesterday on The Fashion Spot, there was an interview by Nika Mavrody and a certain someone (henceforth known as “XX”), who is a higher-up at Models.com. Mavrody was interviewing XX about the newly released “Top 50 Models” according to Models.com. Mavrody does pretty good as an ally (yay, Fashion Spot!), sharply questioning XX about racial diversity that is reflected (or rather, is not reflected). And XX’s answers? Well, let’s just say there were more than a little problematic… seriously, so, so problematic. Read it in its entirety here so you can see what I mean.

So here is my response to XX’s statements. Because I’m just that annoyed, I’ve gone and excerpted some of her responses and translated what her statements actually mean. I don’t believe fashion houses and related companies get to hide any more behind flowery phrases and corporate excuses of aesthetic preferences or branding, because usually these two words are just code for “too racist to care,” as you will see. “tFS” is Mavrody for The Fashion Spot and XX is, well, XX, and my ‘translations’ are italicized so you can distinguish them easily.

***

tFS: What trends have you been spotting in modeling? What’s “the look”? “Cool editorial”?

XX: Ehhh, I think cool these days is making $$$. Cool doesn’t really do much for a model. It gets her in the door but the models that stick around have a well-rounded career. Andreea Diaconu is a great example. She’s been around for years, worked her way up and now is the girl everyone wants to shoot. Older is cooler now. 

Translation: Female models need to work a hundred times as hard to appear interesting or cool, and it helps if you’re rich. Young women don’t know what they’re talking about or what they’re doing so I don’t care.

tFS: And racial diversity? 

XX: Racial diversity is an interesting subject. It’s really a branding problem. And also the idea that if you have one black girl you can’t have another. 

Translation: This is me trying to be politically correct but ugh, I don’t want to talk about this. There’s already one article on the whole “one black girl” policy, what else do you want me to say?

tFS: What do you mean about it being a branding problem? 

XX: Well, it’s really up to the brands. Casting directors can do their best, but they need to represent the brand. 

Translation: Yikes, it looks like I’m being painted into a corner here. I will dodge this one by passing the buck and blaming it on the brands themselves and the supposedly “random” nature of commerce.

tFS: Yeah. By my quick count it looks like just three of the Top 50 girls are black? 

XX: We are just reflecting who is cast in the industry. It would be a little weird for us to add someone in. Having said that, we have Joan Smalls at one and we hoped that would send a message of diversity support to the industry. And she earned it. Putting someone on a list just because of their race isn’t really a good reason either.

Translation: Oh god, she’s onto us… okay, equal opportunity hiring practices are irrelevant in the fashion world, I will be honest about that but hey it’s not my problem I’m not “the industry,” you know. I’m okay with tokenizing Joan Smalls so I appear PC — I mean, hello, she’s black and she’s number one isn’t that enough? But I don’t actually want to say I believe in tokenism cuz that’s not cool — right? Right?!

tFS: Does Models.com have a perspective on the Model Alliance’s pending child model legislation? 

XX: We are all about Sara Ziff and anything that changes the way people are treated in this industry for the better can’t be bad. My own personal view is that a lot of girls are lucky to be able to pay for college, etc. And some truly love modeling and have supportive parents/agents and this new law will make it very difficult for them to get hired under 18. But it might be worth protecting those that aren’t in that situation — which are many. Also, if a brand wants a girl, they will just pay the fine. And it might just turn into a new hierarchy, but we’ll see. Hope for the best.

Translation: God, I wish models would quit whining. They are getting paid, what else do they want? Besides, let’s just support the kids — all 16-year-olds want to be slaves in child labour, didn’t you know that? These laws are nothing, designers can just pay off the child labour fee no probs. I mean, it’s kind of important, I guess. I really don’t know what I’m talking about.

tFS: What do you mean by a new hierarchy? 

XX: Well, a girl is a new type of special if a brand is willing to use her and just pay the fine. Ideally everyone will mind their P’s and Q’s, though. 

Translation: Well, if a given model promises to be an It Girl a company will pay anything to have her model for them. I hope people will follow the law though, ’cause you know, that’s a good thing or whatever.

This article was also posted on The Closet Feminist today.