SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:55PM
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
> 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
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
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
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
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)
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
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