SOWPub Small Business Forums

SOWPub Small Business Forums (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/index.php)
-   SOWPub Business Forum (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   "For Fear Of . . . " (http://www.sowpub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1645)

Hugh Gaugler September 10, 2006 12:06 PM

"For Fear Of . . . "
 
Here are some quote from a Yahoo News article at

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060908...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

************************************
"MADRID (AFP) - Excessively skinny fashion models will be barred from a major Madrid fashion show later this month for fear they could send the wrong message to young Spanish girls, local media reported."
. . .
"The authorities collaborated with a Spanish health organisation to come up with a minumum body mass -- a height-weight ratio -- of 18 for the models."
. . .
"Organisers said they wanted to 'help ensure public opinion does not associate fashion, and fashion shows in particular, with an increase in anorexia, a disease which, along with bulimia, is considered ... as a mental and behavioural problem'."

************************************

What's next????

What else do you think should be banned "for fear of . . ."?

Methinks US President FDR had it right: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

---- Hugh

Sandi Bowman September 10, 2006 01:39 PM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
Well, much as I dislike excessive tinkering with the natural way of things, this is one case in which I'm glad to see it happening and in such a positive way.

Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to anorexia or bulimia, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move. It is primarily the fashion mavens and media that have created the crisis in the first place with their super thin, unnatural bodies as the 'model of perfection'.

Now if we could get the media to follow suit and start showing people as they really are, or at least healthy instead of wasted....we just might have a start on creating a happier, healthier world mentally and physically.

Mental disorders don't all start in the brain of the sufferer...sometimes the roots are in society itself and the way it projects and distorts things. It's a great start and I congratulate them on their forward thinking and concern.

Sandi Bowman

Jim Kaiser September 10, 2006 02:14 PM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
I think it is ridiculous that any government should be able to ban something like this. It's not the job of government.

I do think though, that many companies should wise up and realize that showing "typical" and "average" people in their marketing campaigns is probably a smarter choice.

The DOVE company comes to mind as a good example of marketing to real "average" people with "average" looking people in their ads ....

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com...t&section=news

Jim

MichaelRoss September 11, 2006 04:35 AM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
Sandy,

Thanks for expressing your support.

This is an "I disagree wholeheartedly" moment for me. For Where do we draw the line with your line of thought?...

"Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to anorexia or bulimia, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move."

Let's ban All cars because Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend in a car crash, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move.

Let's ban All swimming pools because Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to drowning, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move. In fact, lets ban swimming for the same reason.

Let's ban ALL fast food outlets because Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to obesity, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move.

Let's ban hiking because Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to being lost in the wilds, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move.

Let's ban all alcohol because Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to alcoholism, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move.

Let's ban all TV because Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to poor blood circulation caused by sitting in front of the idiot box, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move.

Let's ban all walking outside because Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to hit and run, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move.

And so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

What's next... we all must watch the two minute physical jerks - as so aptly called in the book 1984 - because of so-called forward-thinking from the govt?

No thanks. I'll have no part of your govt-controlled "forward-thinking".

Michael Ross

Ankesh September 11, 2006 05:27 AM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
Forgeting the government involvement for a minute, I think we can see a trend over here.

Something I heard in a cool workshop some time back. The old cool and suave James Bond is dead. The new James Bond is Jason Bourne. He isn't perfect. He gets nightmares. Has amnesia. And drives banged up cars.

The last James Bond movie was a big flop. People are tired of perfectionism. They want authenticity. "Be real."

I think that just like James Bond - paper thin models are enjoying their last few days. The government in Spain stepped in. But even if they hadn't, the designers, organizers etc will get rid of skinny models pretty very soon.

The first designer who manages to make "real" girls look as sexy as thin models will become huge. And the rest will then follow.

Sandi Bowman September 11, 2006 10:59 AM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
Sandi replies:

Ankesh, I think your observations are very astute and right on the money.

Michael, while I appreciate what you tried to say regarding government involvement, let me ask you this question: Supposing, instead of the Spanish government it had been a huge group of the most influential designers who got together and decided that they would no longer show their clothing designs on skeletons and that real people are who they should be showing off? Would that make any difference in your support of their move? Just wondering.

You see, it's not about government versus non-government, it's about improving the mental health of the people served...whether it's the government doing the serving or individual groups of people, such as fashion designers.

There are places where people come first...and those people live happy, contented lives well into their 90's and beyond. It's not perfect...nothing ever is...but they beat the odds over most societies. The one thing such societies have in common is support for people AS THEY REALLY ARE, not as some head-in-the-clouds group of politicians or goody-two-shoes, or manipulative mavens of any type would decree. THIS is what I am supporting: getting people back on solid terra firma instead of wishful thinking.

If it takes a government decree to get the ball rolling, I'm all for it. I'd prefer that people take it upon themselves to make the fundamental changes necessary for a mentally healthy and stable society but whatever it takes, within reason, to get us back to sanity in an insane world, let's go for it.

Sandi Bowman

Jim Kaiser September 11, 2006 02:25 PM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
Hey Sandi,

I think the real issue here is the government involvment.

I wouldn't disagree one bit if the designers and the ones in charge of the show made the decision. That's their thing and they should be entitled to do their show however they please.

The fact that the government got involved and told them what they can and can't do is what bothers me. It's not the job of the government to regulate this sort of thing.

There is far too much government regulation in our lives - much of it we should be able to do without. This example crosses the line.

Where does it end and where do we draw the line on what government can and can't regulate?

Jim

MichaelRoss September 11, 2006 03:07 PM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
Ankesh,

Thanks for adding.

The question is NOT whether a designer can make a Real Girl (whatever That means) sexy isn't the question. It's how fashion works. You need to know THAT before you can know Why lean models are used.

Clothes sells not because it looks good on, but because it looks good hanging on the rack. When it looks good on the hanger on the rack, it is picked out, tried on and bought.

Thus, so the clothes looks good when shown in real life, the designers Need models upon which the clothes will hang like it does on the rack. As such, they need lean models from a profitability point of view.

Movies sales aren't about what's real or not - 007 vs Bourne. It's about the Story and existing Fan Base, if any.

Bourne = a mystery underdog that everyone is trying to kill but he seems like a nice guy.

Bond = a skilled secret agent that we know will use lots of gadgets and will win in the end.

Bond's failing is more to do with no Q and a different M and Money Penny, together with weak story lines. Plus, we are now in a generation where the gadgets do Not impress us, and are even available to the general public.

Michael Ross

Hugh Gaugler September 11, 2006 08:39 PM

Follow The Money . . .
 
Michael,

I agree with you.

I wonder why it is that there exists a class of people who believe it is their right and duty to dictate to others how they should think and act on any particular subject?

This (class of people) is the source of the scourge of so-called "political correctness" which, it seems to me, has the effect, if not the purpose, of putting people in mental straight-jackets, leaving them unable to have discriminating thoughts outside of certain defined limits . . . the definition of said "thought limits" being the sole province, of course, of those who somehow know what is best for the rest of us. The perfect profession for members of this class of people is in government or as "activists" for organizations that hold sway over government.

The problem in Madrid can be traced to this line in the article (emphasis added):

"Madrid's regional government, which is co-financing the Pasarela Cibeles, has vetoed around a third of the models who took part in last year's show because they weigh too little." [Note: The "Pasarela Cibeles" is the annual trade show for Spanish fashion designers.]

So there you have it. Take from the government, and give up some of your power of choice to "the authorities".

Take again, and give up more.

Notice that no one is concerned about the girls who have been axed from the program, and that their right to earn a living in their chosen profession has been killed "for fear of . . . " (i.e., an unproven hypothesis . . . read "someone's opinion about how they look MIGHT possibly adversely affect someone somewhere somehow").

Skinny sacrifical virgins on the alter of political correctness.

You know, when I was in grade school . . . this was back in the '50's . . . I distinctly remember one girl in my class who was overly concerned about her weight . . . and she was already thin. But guess what: That was the age of the buxom blond aka Maryln Monroe, Jane Mansfield, etc., long before Twiggie arrived on the scene ["Twiggy was the world's first supermodel: a skinny kid with the face of an angel who became an icon." --- from the web site http://www.twiggylawson.co.uk/fashion.html --- she became popular in 1966.] Could it be that this girl, herself, might have been responsible for her thoughts and actions with regard to wanting to be thin?

Could it be that all the anorexics and bulimics out there might, themselves, be responsible for their thoughts and actions?

I've noticed that one tactic some mothers use to keep their kids "safe" is to make them afraid. If a kid is made to be afraid then he/she can be controlled. It's a similar tactic used by the politically correct do-gooders: Make everyone afraid to offend. The REAL answer is to make the child . . . and each person in the society . . . able to think for themselves. Able to discriminate, if you will (in the good sense of the word).

As you pointed out, when you start allowing one class of people to dictate how everyone else should think and act on this or that subject, it is just the beginning.

One might cheer this first one, but beware the next politically correct decision . . . it just might be against something that you hold near and dear.

---- Hugh

MichaelRoss September 12, 2006 04:02 AM

Re: "For Fear Of . . . "
 
Sandy,

Thanks for asking me questions...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman (Post 5251)
Supposing, instead of the Spanish government it had been a huge group of the most influential designers who got together and decided that they would no longer show their clothing designs on skeletons and that real people are who they should be showing off? Would that make any difference in your support of their move?"


Hmmm... I didn't know they were showing their designs on skeletons. I thought they were showing their designs on real living and breathing people. Did I miss a memo?

Sandy, I know what you are getting at despite your choice of words... that is... if the designers themselves, of their own free will and volition without coercion, decided to use models who were not as lean as they normally use, would I object?

I do not object to what any business does of its own free will and volition without coercion. As far as I am concerned, if they want to show their clothes on albino muslim dwarfs - is that minority enough for you? - then let them go right ahead.

My objection is two fold... one is the government, yes. But the other is YOUR line of thought with regards to cheering it on... Anyone who has ever lost a loved one or friend to INSERT THING YOU WANT TO BAN HERE, will undoubtedly cheer this forward-thinking move. Because That thinking leads to more and more freedoms taken away because YOU/WHOMEVER use such logic.

Look at your question to me... about using real people instead. How do you define Real, what is Real? Is Real what YOU think is a-ok?

How come no-one gets on Oprah's case about being Fat. Doesn't That send a wrong message that Fat is OK? I guess it's not so PC to attack fat (black women) people is it? I've seen how fatties are treated... they say, "I'm fat" and people quickly jump up to tell them they are not.

Onward...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman (Post 5251)
You see, it's not about government versus non-government, it's about improving the mental health of the people served."


Oh... nice political ploy. Don't like the question, change it. The old, "It's not about X, it's about XX" ploy.

Mighten the Mental Health - how you got This into it blows my mind - be Better improved by not molly-coddling fatso people and telling them they are fine when they obviously aren't. Might it be better served by not trying to stop people from expressing themselves without bloody fear of upsetting some imagined minority group?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman (Post 5251)
There are places where people come first...and those people live happy, contented lives well into their 90's and beyond."


WHERE are these places? If you like them so much, why don't you go live in them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman (Post 5251)
The one thing such societies have in common is support for people AS THEY REALLY ARE, not as some head-in-the-clouds group of politicians or goody-two-shoes, or manipulative mavens of any type would decree."


Oh, you mean how YOU seem to have an idea of how some should be, when they are a REAL person, just like all those do-gooders you are talking about?

How about, letting people BE how they want to BE, period. Without any pressure to be REAL... YOUR version of what Real is, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman (Post 5251)
If it takes a government decree to get the ball rolling, I'm all for it."


See, THIS line of thinking is dangerous. Because it can justify Anything YOU want to have forced onto people as long as it fits YOUR view of how things should be. How quick you are to use the Force of the govt to coerce others into things YOU would like. Cheering the govt on in such freedom infringements is Always dangerous. Why can't you - and all those who want to change people to how they want them to be - just leave people alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandi Bowman (Post 5251)
I'd prefer that people take it upon themselves to make the fundamental changes necessary for a mentally healthy and stable society but whatever it takes, within reason, to get us back to sanity in an insane world, let's go for it."


Whatever it takes? Within reason? And WHO decides what is reasonable? Didn't a whole bunch of Jews die at a time when it seemed reasonable? How about the Spanish Inquisition? Seemed reasonable to them, at the time? I'm sure the 9/11 hijackers thought they were doing things within reason as well.

And who decides what is sanity and insane?

How about this...

Property Rights: What I own, earn, make, create, buy, trade for, inherit or are given is My Property and NO-ONE shall lay a claim on it, period.

An infringement on My Property without my permission is wrong.

These are my Individual Rights.

You cannot have Minority Group Rights without first having Individual Rights, as a Minority Group is made up of Individuals.

Now, having laid this Very Simple groundwork, is there Any minority group you can think of that Infringes upon the property rights of someone else?

Maybe I should ask, can you name a single minority group which does NOT infringe upon the property rights of others? Because I cannot name one single minority group, cause, collective, organisation, whatever they want to call themselves, that does Not infring upon my Individual Property Rights. And You would be cheering right along side some of them, going by what you've expressed here.

Michael Ross


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.