Model Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[badgalcrush]

Some of these comments justifying her racism are awful.
You cannot fight racism with racism. Full stop.

The idea that if you're white but not actively doing anything to stop racism means that you're racist or part of the problem is utterly ridiculous!
I'm interested in what people who agree with her think white people SHOULD be doing to fight racism to therefore not "be racist" or part of the problem.

We as all people of colour, race, religion, nationality etc cannot physically fight EVERY battle or injustice in the world. So for her to say that a white person is racist because they're not actively fighting racism is utterly ridiculous.

If you're straight but you're not actively promoting rights of gay and lesbians does that make you homophobic?

If you're a citizen of one country but not actively taking in refugees into your own home or assisting refugees into coming to your country does that make you xenophobic?

If you're a Christian but not actively stopping anti-Semitism or promoting Jewish rights does that make you anti-Semitic?

Look, I think she chose her words incredibly poorly and she's now paying the price for that just like any other person would if they said something ridiculous as the spokesperson for a high profile brand. By keeping her on, L'Oreal would be identified as a racist brand for having a racist as their spokesperson. The backlash would be much more detrimental and widespread if they kept her.

Had she apologised immediately and clarified her words to say that the Charlottesville protests have uncovered extreme racism due to the rise of the white supremacists and KKK but these are fringe groups not representative of white America then everyone would have absolutely agreed with her and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I do agree with you in some points but also disagree ,
I think she wasn't expressing herself clearly. She was trying to say that she thinks that when you are white and are living in a place where there is opression that YOU AWARE you got some privileges and live like everything is okay , then you "inconciously" that part of racism ( I said white in the exemple but this form of racism can be apply to everyone who is acting like including people who are from the discriminated group)

I dont know if you will understand what I'm saying it is a very complex subject but I thing she was right in some points to say that but she should not have spoken on behalf of everyone. Sometimes when you in conflit with stupid people ( and there are A LOT in this world and you try to educate them but there are stubborn you can lost your patience and generalize but it's not the right think to do.

 

[fashionista-ta]

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

--John Stuart Mill

There are many, many ways to act against racism, and yes, I do think that everyone is responsible for taking action against what's wrong.

She was saying that white people in general benefit from the injustice of white privilege ... and that is absolutely true. Not only do white people in this country start off with considerably more wealth than black people, but they are also more likely to gain it and retain it due to racism in its many facets. Whole books have been written on these subjects, but those are the facts in a nutshell.

She's saying that if my life is easier at others' expense, and I just ride along on their backs while doing nothing to change the situation, I am a party to institutional racism, not an innocent bystander. I agree.

 

[Littleathquakes]

She was saying that white people in general benefit from the injustice of white privilege ... and that is absolutely true.

That's not what she said. And it is far from true. Fact is, there were white slaves in history prior to Africa. People of color are not the only ones to be subjugated to slavery, so the mere fact of her saying that ALL white people benefited from "the backs, blood and death of people of colour" is inherently false. The history of slavery is not as one-sided as it seems. Black slave traders in Africa sold other blacks to Europeans and I have mentioned this in this thread previously. Maybe she fleshed out her wording later to be clearer, but that was not what she initially said.

 

[dauphine]

Gigi Hadid released an apology note but only posted it on Weibo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gigi-hadid-china-apology-weibo_us_59b155f3e4b0b5e5310432fa

 

[eizhowa]

That's not what she said. And it is far from true. Fact is, there were white slaves in history prior to Africa. People of color are not the only ones to be subjugated to slavery, so the mere fact of her saying that ALL white people benefited from "the backs, blood and death of people of colour" is inherently false. The history of slavery is not as one-sided as it seems. Black slave traders in Africa sold other blacks to Europeans and I have mentioned this in this thread previously. Maybe she fleshed out her wording later to be clearer, but that was not what she initially said.

I think she might be refering to present tense, and that might very possibly be true.

But yes, pretty much all ethnicities have enslaved people. I might have mentioned this earlier as well. Racism has a tendency to become a topic in this thread it seems!

 

[fashionista-ta]

That's not what she said. And it is far from true. Fact is, there were white slaves in history prior to Africa. People of color are not the only ones to be subjugated to slavery, so the mere fact of her saying that ALL white people benefited from "the backs, blood and death of people of colour" is inherently false. The history of slavery is not as one-sided as it seems. Black slave traders in Africa sold other blacks to Europeans and I have mentioned this in this thread previously. Maybe she fleshed out her wording later to be clearer, but that was not what she initially said.

It is what I heard her say in the video. I cleaned my ears quite recently too

The fact that at some time and place a white person was once enslaved doesn't impact the truth of what she said. There were also a few black slaveholders in the US. None of these exceptions change the larger pattern of institutional racism that unfortunately persists to this day.

This is what white privilege looks like. It's easier for me to get a job and keep a job. It's easier for me to get an education. My parents are far less likely to be incarcerated ... and that's a huge advantage too. I'm more likely to inherit wealth. My parents are more likely to help me buy a house. My health and healthcare are better. I can walk down the street without getting side eye. Unlike Questlove, who's been stopped 19 times for driving while black, I have never been stopped for no good reason. And on and on and on ...

 

[BetteT]

Moderators Note:

While we encourage lively debate among our members and most of you are trying to show respect towards each other and are carefully explaining your views about this particular model's comments, please be aware that racism is an extremely volatile topic. It's extremely easy to have someone think you are making racist comments, even if you intentions are good.



Therefore, we ask that you move on to another topic.

Thanks, everyone.

 

[dsamg]

I thought this was a great article, although there are really only 2-3 'legitimate' models in the article who can actually talk about a true top model experience.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/...ssment-body-issues-new-york-fashion-week.html

Kelly's part was shocking. Well into five figures of debt from modelling at that age? And the S&M shoot when she had never kissed a boy? I felt really sorry for her. It was an unfortunate choice to photograph Grace with straight hair when she was talking about not wanting to straighten her hair.

 

[KateTheGreatest]

^Thank you for posting.

I think maybe this is the photoshoot Kelly was referring to?

http://noirfacade.livejournal.com/1033318.html

 

[theBlueRider]

I thought this was a great article, although there are really only 2-3 'legitimate' models in the article who can actually talk about a true top model experience.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/...ssment-body-issues-new-york-fashion-week.html

Kelly's part was shocking. Well into five figures of debt from modelling at that age? And the S&M shoot when she had never kissed a boy? I felt really sorry for her. It was an unfortunate choice to photograph Grace with straight hair when she was talking about not wanting to straighten her hair.

It is not surprising to me that she was well into five figures of debt. A lot of these young so called "legitimate" models are actually in debt. Their entire beginning of career is a very expensive investment in hopes of becoming the next Karlie or Gisele. But really, 2 out of 100 girls on the new face board at any given agency might end up close to something like a Dilone career and the rest quit.

I think it's well known now that editorials and shows pay almost nothing. Only household name models make a lot with shows. It's the "illegitimate" models who are making the money and holding up the roof for these agencies. A lot of times those models aren't even listed on the websites because they're not "image."

 

[tapenerd]

Definitely not surprised by the debt. I worked at a modeling agency a few years ago, and the agents charged the model for everything! If someone messed up their comp card, they'd have them fix but charge the model for that too. Reprinting comp cards, re-doing their portfolio, everything you could think of, all charged to the model. I was always disgusted when I had to bill the model. It's just not right.

 

[BetteT]

Most models don't realize what they are getting into.

Based on the comments in the article, I would say the following:
A model has the right to say no .... if the working conditions are poor, but unfortunately, that would mark him or her as "difficult". It's kind of a "catch 22" for them.

Regarding paying for stuff, the fact is: Agencies do not "hire" models ... it's actually the other way around. Models are actually "self employed" and they hire agencies (if the agency wants to represent them) ... to market them to clients and to guide them. Therefore, as business owners .... models must pay for all of their own expenses. All of them, including postage/messenger fees,cost of copies, etc. ... when the agency mails stuff out on their behalf.

And yes ... most models don't make much money ... if any. Only a very few actually get enough work to show a profit. They are still "legitimate" .... if they are working some and are represented by a serious agency. They just are not in the top 1 or 2 percent of working models.


There's a thread in Careers and Education about this very thing ... that a model pays her own expenses: http://forums.thefashionspot.com/f90/truth-about-modeling-expenses-who-really-pays-38476.html

 

[tapenerd]

^Thats exactly the problem, no one tells them what they are getting into. They should be given all the facts beforehand. Especially if it's a child. You can say that they are self-employed, but the agency makes all their decisions- what to wear, the precise hair cut they need, where they have to be that day, what country to send them to. They can feel powerless to the agency. Point is, is that everyone should know exactly what is going to happen. And that's why it's great that people are speaking out.

 

[theBlueRider]

^Thats exactly the problem, no one tells them what they are getting into. They should be given all the facts beforehand. Especially if it's a child. You can say that they are self-employed, but the agency makes all their decisions- what to wear, the precise hair cut they need, where they have to be that day, what country to send them to. They can feel powerless to the agency. Point is, is that everyone should know exactly what is going to happen. And that's why it's great that people are speaking out.

More need to speak out! Kuddos to the variety of models included in that article. Of course, we at TFS would only recognize Grace and Kelly but we can't discount the experiences of the other girls. I think it is these types of "hierarchy" attitudes that causes some problems in the industry. The agency also contributes to this "hierarchy" attitude.

The general public gives agencies too much power as well. Too often I hear agencies talked like designer handbags. A top agency doesn't employ the models and also doesn't guarantee that a model whether new face, commercial or established high fashion will make a lot of money. A girl on the Muse Plus division can make more money than a established face who is always in the show package for Next.

It's kind of sickening to see the videos of scouts talking now and how it is so different from what these models are saying. Agency scouting marketing is clearly aimed at very young people who don't have a grasp on how to handle money, bills and spending. They never talk about how building a starting portfolio involves paying the "top test photographers" in a market called test shoots. These can be anywhere from 400-1000 dollars for around 10 pictures. The agency might only use a few pictures from one shoot so they want the girl to do 3-5 of these paying shoots. So that's a couple thousand already in the red. Then on top of that, a set of 100 or so comp cards is a couple hundred dollars. Clients grab comp cards like candy at Halloween. Then there's the haircuts, website fees, clothes etc. It's really the commercial models who can only survive like that unless a new face can become a fashion star.

It's all very sad and I hope more speak out to educate the public. I also realize that we, as fashion fans, need to change our thinking too and be more supportive and understanding of the models and stop giving power to the agencies and middlepeople. I find that I have to catch myself these days. Sometimes a model's behavior is legitimate!

 

[Benn98]

So the agency is much like an ad-hoc consultancy? If that's the case then the model, as a free agent, should be liable for all associated costs. It sounds a bit far-fetched that an agency's primary income is coming off of all these small costs which the model must pay. Surely these are just spoils. It's in their interest to get the girl to book jobs, lots of them. And since I can't imagine the turnaround is very quick, maybe that's why the model eventually becomes indebted to them. Models must take more initiative, go through their expenses with a fine comb. It's silly to entrust someone else with your livelihood. With all that said, I do agree that the entire modelling industry needs looking at.

Looking at Kelly's S&M edit, one can tell she doesn't have a clue what's what. But while I feel for her and agree that the agency is essentially at fault, I can't help wondering what exactly her and her parents thought the shoots will be about? Running through a floral field dressed in a white jumper? Were they even looking at editorials and campaigns to have a rough idea what would be expected of Kelly? I dunno, to me it just sounds a bit naive and irresponsible to expose your child to situation like this. It's so troubling to hear prospective models always thinking the industry is all glitz, glam, and jet-setting.

Can't sympathise much with Grace because there are actually other jobs out there. As it is Grace wasn't even into it to begin with, so it made no sense why she stuck it out.
Ebonee however is a prime example of someone taking control. She called the shots, and it eventually paid off. Good on her!

 

[theBlueRider]

^Benn98,
I have heard that agencies tack on mark ups and pocket the difference for the associated costs. So if a set of comp cards cost 200 dollars through an outside printing company, they might tack on 50 dollars to the charge and pocket the 50 dollars.
Agencies tend to rely on investor dollars too. Investors are still the backbone for the top agencies so it's not like these agencies are companies that are actually doing well. I think that's why bookers tend to move around so much. That's also why you might hear about agencies not releasing money to models...sketchy stuff starts happening. The super editorial boards, which are the models we tend to like, are the ones that are very risky and usually in debt. But then it is the commercial boards, the kind of models we don't like, that hold the roof for everyone.

This could also be why certain agencies like working with "rich kid" models. I've heard that some parents give their credit card information on file to cover the costs.....that makes it a lot easier for the agency. And it's not like the "rich kid" model will ever have to learn how to manage finances at 17...

 

[eizhowa]

^Benn98,
I have heard that agencies tack on mark ups and pocket the difference for the associated costs. So if a set of comp cards cost 200 dollars through an outside printing company, they might tack on 50 dollars to the charge and pocket the 50 dollars.
Agencies tend to rely on investor dollars too. Investors are still the backbone for the top agencies so it's not like these agencies are companies that are actually doing well. I think that's why bookers tend to move around so much. That's also why you might hear about agencies not releasing money to models...sketchy stuff starts happening. The super editorial boards, which are the models we tend to like, are the ones that are very risky and usually in debt. But then it is the commercial boards, the kind of models we don't like, that hold the roof for everyone.

This could also be why certain agencies like working with "rich kid" models. I've heard that some parents give their credit card information on file to cover the costs.....that makes it a lot easier for the agency. And it's not like the "rich kid" model will ever have to learn how to manage finances at 17...

Well yes. Why shouldn't they get paid for organizing the comp cards?

 

[Benn98]

I agree with Eizhowa. Overheads, you see. Someone must be arranging those comp cards on the agency's clock and resources. So that doesn't seem out of place.

This could also be why certain agencies like working with "rich kid" models. I've heard that some parents give their credit card information on file to cover the costs.....that makes it a lot easier for the agency. And it's not like the "rich kid" model will ever have to learn how to manage finances at 17...

Sounds like the Instagirls are lucky in that sense because they can see their earnings clear-cut, but it does increase the risk of being taken for a ride.

 

[Littleathquakes]

Well yes. Why shouldn't they get paid for organizing the comp cards?

If you do the math, that's a 25% fee - seems rather greedy.

 

[eizhowa]

If you do the math, that's a 25% fee - seems rather greedy.

Only about 12,5% after you deduct all taxes. *shrugs*.