Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the freedom-fat dept.

CBC Canada has a report on a law under consideration in France's lower house that would require models to meet a minimum body mass index standard.

The link between high fashion, body image and eating disorders on French catwalks may lead to a ban on super-skinny models.

Style-conscious France, with its fashion and luxury industries worth tens of billions of dollars, would join Italy, Spain and Israel, which all adopted laws against too-thin models on catwalks or in advertising campaigns in early 2013.​

Under the proposed legislation, any model who wants to work has to have a body mass index (a type of height to weight ratio) of at least 18 and would be subject to regular weight checks.

The law would enforce fines of up to $79,000 [US] for any breaches, with up to six months in jail for any staff involved, French Socialist Party legislator Olivier Veran, who wrote the amendments, told newspaper Le Parisien.

The bill's amendments also propose penalties for anything made public that could be seen as encouraging extreme thinness, notably pro-anorexia websites that glorify unhealthy lifestyles and forums that encourage eating disorders.

Body Mass Index (BMI) is is a measure of relative size based on the mass and height of an individual.

c0lo's random thoughts:

  • On one side: governments regulating the BMI... (large soda ban)... hmm?
  • On the other side: how is this different from laws against public indecency, laws which are well-knitted into the fabric of westernized societies?
 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:07AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:07AM (#168158) Journal

    Seems like blatant discrimination. So any models that have naturally low BMI are now unemployable in their chosen profession.

    Mmm... the same could be said about... let's see... US marines? If is it not the same, why not?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by fishybell on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:54AM

    by fishybell (3156) on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:54AM (#168181)

    It's not the same for the military because they are the military, and have their own set of laws: the Uniform Code of Military Justice [wikipedia.org]. They even have their own court system that if you are convicted in of anything, the state you committed the crime in can try you for it again, effectively usurping the right to not being subject to double jeopardy [freeadvice.com].

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:55AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:55AM (#168194) Journal
      Bzzzt... wrong [army.mil] in this case

      In 2013, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta signed a document to lift the Defense Department's ban on women in direct ground combat roles. This historical decision overturned a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry, and other combat roles and military occupational specialties.

      Another try maybe?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:55PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:55PM (#168325)

    It's as discriminating as requiring fire fighters to have two usable arms. The US Marines have minimum standards that must be met in order to join. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis for a waiver. However the Marines do not discriminate on looks or appearance (tatoos being the only exception). BMI has zero effect on a model's ability to model. It only affects what others perceive of them.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:52PM (#168400)

      > BMI has zero effect on a model's ability to model.

      Oh no, it very much does. Currently fashion designers make clothes exclusively for six-foot-tall walking clotheshangers with resting bitchface. If this regulation passes they may start making clothes that actual women would look good in.

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:47PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:47PM (#168417)

        Designers tailor the clothes to the specific model for a perfect fit. Even "six-foot-tall walking clotheshangers" have different bodies. But you are right, they can design the clothes on a mannequin of proportions that few humans match. Then force models to wear it without tailoring it. Then if a model wants to wear a (lazy) designer's clothes the'll have to shape their body to fit the ridiculous mannequin.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:42PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:42PM (#168443) Journal

      BMI has zero effect on a model's ability to model.

      Except when it leads to their death [wikipedia.org], in which case the ability to model is exactly zero.
      Isn't this a case of exploitation (employer asks/rewards the model for persisting in an unhealthy habit)?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:30PM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:30PM (#168458)

        If you believe that these employees are being taken advantage of then you don't create a law to fine those employees for 79,000$. Do programmers die of no sleep and too much caffeine because their bosses overwork them? Maybe. Many bosses love workaholics. Who do you blame in that scenario? Obviously every human being on the planet can push themselves to extremes in to excel beyond their peers. Laws are often created to protect employees. Maybe this is no different, i'd have to think about it more. Social pressures and perception play the key role though which makes it slightly different.

        But you are taking this a different direction. You asked about the difference between US Marines and Models.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:30PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:30PM (#168480) Journal

          Maybe this is no different, i'd have to think about it more

          That's why I found the story interesting - plenty of ground for thought in ethics' territory.
          As I also find interesting your note that the law chooses to punish not the employer (as a rewarder), but the anorexia sufferer; thanks for that. Isn't it like punishing smokers and let the tobacco industry run ads unhindered? Sliding on this slope, laws to punish the possession and use of drugs exist, so punishing the sufferers it's not unheard of (interesting specific difference: drug addicts are dependent on using a substance, the pathological anorexics are dependent on not taking other substances - i.e. food)

          But you are taking this a different direction. You asked about the difference between US Marines and Models.

          I'm not arguing in any particular direction, just wanted to take the discussion in deeper details (this is why I ended with an opened question).
          Things like "business necessity" vs "unintentional adverse impact" [wikipedia.org] (which doesn't apply for this case, the fashion industry can perfectly use normal models).

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:58PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:58PM (#168491) Journal

          Do programmers die of no sleep and too much caffeine because their bosses overwork them? Maybe. Many bosses love workaholics. Who do you blame in that scenario?

          Other food for thought [nytimes.com] (Adderall/Ritalin use in colleges). How long before the employers will tip the balance towards "firing you if you don't take drugs"?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:44PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:44PM (#168353)

    Because certain people are better at doing the job than others, and if you're incapable of doing the job because of some physical conditions, of course they're not going to hire you. Super-skinny models are not incapable of doing the job or bad at it by any means.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:38PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:38PM (#168439) Journal

      Super-skinny models are not incapable of doing the job or bad at it by any means.

      But by persisting in doing so, they put themselves in mortal danger [wikipedia.org]. Shouldn't the state take care?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:55PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:55PM (#168468)

        That's their choice and no one else's. Likewise, the drug war is also 100% intolerable. Also, some people are naturally super-skinny even if they don't necessarily want to be. Are they not allowed to model?

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:50PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:50PM (#168488) Journal

          That's their choice and no one else's. Likewise, the drug war is also 100% intolerable.

          Yes, but their employer encourages them to do so. Even more, as someone else noted [soylentnews.org], it is not the one that encourages them/exploits their unhealthy life style to be punished.

          Speaking about war on drugs: where do you draw the line?
          How would you like to live in a world in which not taking drugs would affect you chances to employment? You think it's impossible? It already [bu.edu] started [nytimes.com], in college campuses [clintonfoundation.org] (google for "adderall competitive advantage").

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:48PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:48PM (#168512)

            Yes, but their employer encourages them to do so. Even more, as someone else noted, it is not the one that encourages them/exploits their unhealthy life style to be punished.

            Guess what? There are jobs besides modeling, and maybe they aren't all great, but 'ugly' people don't have the choice of modeling to begin with. If super-skinny models are what people desire (and I just think that looking at bags of bones is nasty), then companies will want to hire models who are like that. I don't see how this problem can be solved, as taste is subjective. Do you force companies to hire/keep people who aren't attractive (as defined by the audience)? I don't think that will work in this case, given all the subjectivity involved, if I understand this issue correctly. Also, as I said, some people really are just super-skinny even without trying to be, so are they banned from modeling under these proposals? That is authoritarian, but that's what it looks like to me.

            And this is also about censorship, not just stopping employers from encouraging people to be super-skinny. Government censorship is intolerable.

            Speaking about war on drugs: where do you draw the line?
            How would you like to live in a world in which not taking drugs would affect you chances to employment? You think it's impossible? It already started, in college campuses (google for "adderall competitive advantage").

            The real problem is that universities and colleges are increasingly becoming corporate in nature. The focus should be on education, not about competition, money, or jobs. People that go there for the main purpose of getting a degree should not be there to begin with, as they do not value education. These adderall-obsessed fools are seemingly more interested in getting good grades on tests.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:51PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:51PM (#168537) Journal

              Do you force companies to hire/keep people who aren't attractive (as defined by the audience)? I don't think that will work in this case, given all the subjectivity involved, if I understand this issue correctly.

              I'd expect companies to behave ethical and not exploit a sickness of their employee to their advantage. If you let this gate open, where do you stop?

              The real problem is that universities and colleges are increasingly becoming corporate in nature.

              Well, I agree with you that is one of the many problems with the higher education.
              However, looking at a larger landscape, companies (corporations or not) are dealing in a competitive environment.
              How long 'til they'll start pushing employees to become sick by taking drugs to make them more "efficient"? (think comp-gaming industry)

              In the context of nanny-state and the dumb war-on-drugs, where would the workforce protection line-in-the-sand be drawn? Or... can one hope the market will sort it out? (if positive, what mechanism could set a counterbalance to it?)

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:39PM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:39PM (#168553)

                If you let this gate open, where do you stop?

                These regulations would punish companies if they hired someone who is 'too thin', even if that person makes no effort to be so thin or made the effort of their own accord. I don't think that employers should force them to be unhealthy, but I'm not sure what the solution would be if that is what sells. The current proposals are too far-reaching, and the censorship is especially intolerable.

                Software companies (for instance) will be fine if people don't force people to take drugs, but for modelling, which caters to people's subjective preferences, you've effectively outlawed a certain body type.

                Or... can one hope the market will sort it out?

                The market will do whatever makes money, so good luck with that.

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday April 10 2015, @12:44AM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 10 2015, @12:44AM (#168563) Journal

                  I don't think that employers should force them to be unhealthy, but I'm not sure what the solution would be if that is what sells.

                  I wasn't discussing the appropriateness of the law, I was looking into the problem "is there anything than a state need to do in regards with imposing unhealthy practices on employees?"? (one extreme is nanny-state - takes care about everything in regards with the citizen's protection. The other extreme is the absolute laissez-faire state: no intervention in the transactions between private parties. As both of the extreme are noxious, there has to be something in between. Maybe on a case by case basis, in which case we'd absolutely need to deal with the specific of the French half-assed law which punishes the sick persons)

                  Or... can one hope the market will sort it out?

                  The market will do whatever makes money, so good luck with that.

                  So the absolute laizzes-faire state extreme is not acceptable.

                  --
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford