Model Behavior (PLEASE READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING)

[MON]

There a limits in every prank, and glad that this comedian got what she deserved.

You can make fun of fashion. Parody it in every way possible, but this was out of line. She made a mockery not of fashion, but of the hard work people behind the scenes gave to produce the show.

She interrupted models who, by the way, were working. She interrupted a show that probably involved a hefty amount of money. Also, is this not considered trespassing? Not only that, with this STUNT of hers, several people are bound to LOSE their jobs (security). Was that her cause?

This would have been acceptable at some extent if she were fighting for a cause (like the Gucci model). However this woman just wants to be funny.

And people (internet comments mostly) should stop patronizing this. Clearly its okay to some because the FASHION industry (one of the most hated industries of today's new crop of SJWs) was involved. However, take this same stunt and apply it to like Starbucks, this would have been condemned to filth.

This girl should not be allowed to play the victim, nor be given any time of the day.







However, part of me believes this was a stunt. How on earth did she manage to get in?

 

[ezacessline]

I don't think it was a stunt.

A Chanel Pr said it wasn't staged and wished it didn't happen.
But they won't make a drama of that incident.

Here's the article in French with the statment.

 

[cestmagique]

However, part of me believes this was a stunt. How on earth did she manage to get in?

Because security let her in! She said she lied to them and on her third try, they let her in. So maybe some members of the security team SHOULD be losing their jobs. This whole situation is so overblown. As if this is a brand new situation and runways have never been crashed, and we should all be grabbing our pitchforks and getting angry on behalf of everyone at this mega company... Even Gigi gave her a moment to pose and smile before leading her off.

 

[readings]

So maybe some members of the security team SHOULD be losing their jobs.

I really don't agree with this. Fashion is a very complicated world to navigate with so many last-minute changes, power politics, a complex and ever-changing hierarchy. And for people who are outside of it - it is complicated to make sense of.

If this person claims to be a very important editor or whatnot, how would a security guard know the truth? As I am sure that same guard got reprimanded many times for blocking the way to, say, someone important who didn't have his invitation for example.

This touches a subject that matters to me as I work in this industry and tend to get very mad at how badly all these orbital workers (security guards, handlers, etc) can sometimes be treated (not saying that it is always the case though - and I guess that every industry with this much money and power at play must be the same).

They mostly work hard and can be asked to do one thing and the exact opposite all day. I choose not to blame them unless I have solid proof suggesting an important error or ill will.

 

[Benn98]

If this person claims to be a very important editor or whatnot, how would a security guard know the truth?

It's their job! It's their job to know who's who, who's on the list, who checked in already, who's there without an invite. This is not an opening to a museum where any Tom, Dick and Harry can rock up and fast-talk their way to access, it's one of the biggest fashion brands in the world having a live show. If you can't be bothered to memorise who's attending, you shouldn't be there, to begin with.

I agree with Cest, the security detail who allowed her in should be sacked. That is if it wasn't planned (I think it was). The reality is that it may have been a terrorist. Will people still be sympathising with security then?

 

[Valentine27]

^I disagree Benn. It's the PR's job to check the list and it's the first person you have to deal with when entering a show. Security guards come after that and are posted inside the venue. If this is the way it happened, it's the PR who should be to blame. You can't ask a security guard to know every person of the fashion industry. It reminds me of this video of a security guard in Roland Garros, asking Rafael Nadal "who are you" when he tried to get in without his badge

 

[FashionMuseDior]

I saw the video and it was quite tame for what I was expecting lol

We honestly need a new Nadine Strittmatter vs Peta Woman at Dior RTW FW03 Moment and quick because there is not excitement in the runways anymore.

 

[cestmagique]

I really don't agree with this. Fashion is a very complicated world to navigate with so many last-minute changes, power politics, a complex and ever-changing hierarchy. And for people who are outside of it - it is complicated to make sense of.

If this person claims to be a very important editor or whatnot, how would a security guard know the truth? As I am sure that same guard got reprimanded many times for blocking the way to, say, someone important who didn't have his invitation for example.

This touches a subject that matters to me as I work in this industry and tend to get very mad at how badly all these orbital workers (security guards, handlers, etc) can sometimes be treated (not saying that it is always the case though - and I guess that every industry with this much money and power at play must be the same).

They mostly work hard and can be asked to do one thing and the exact opposite all day. I choose not to blame them unless I have solid proof suggesting an important error or ill will.

The post I was responding to suggested that because of "this STUNT of hers, several people are bound to LOSE their jobs (security)." It's silly to hate on the crasher and then pity the team who are trained and paid to prevent crashers from getting in... You see a person up there on the runway who isn't supposed to be there, and two of the common reactions are "how did they get in?" and "where is security?" No doubt the people at Chanel were asking the same things. No one is expecting each member of security to know every person in every tier of the fashion industry (plus all YouTube comedians...), that's why protocol exists. Maybe members of the team were fired, I have no idea. But it's not exactly an indefensible idea.

 

[Morgane07]

I also believe it could be a PR stunt from Chanel, I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but then again I have a tendency to suspect stunts lol. For instance I find it suspicious that Kylie Jenner and Travis Scott are splitting up just the week she's releasing her Kylie x Balmain makeup line and he's releasing the first single of his upcoming album. Their split is all people were talking about on twitter. Perfect timing for both. It seems unlikely for a brand like Chanel but when you see Gucci at the heart of the conversation for their (unintentional?) "gaffes", anything is possible. I don't know, maybe I'm being silly, but it was all over the news and she's even been interviewed by Elle, French news sites like BRUT etc.

 

[MON]

I find it amusing that we are to excuse a woman who woke up one day and decided that she'll do a prank at the expense of other people's jobs. I hope NONE of us wake up one day without our jobs just because someone decided to commit a prank.

Were they negligent? Maybe, but all of this never would have happened if that woman decided to stay in her lane.

And lets not even get started with terrorists because we are not to discuss the hypothetical.

You go Gigi

 

[Runabout]

At one point, I was thinking what if it was another model in Gigi's place who did it? Will she be ousted from modeling forever? I could be crossing some lines here since I have this feeling that she is the hero of this whole gaffe and yet this won't happen with another, less-popular, model.

 

[readings]

The reality is that it may have been a terrorist. Will people still be sympathising with security then?

I do not want to enter a socio-political debate here because I don't even think I have the right to do so, plus I think the parallel here is just completely sterile, so I won't elaborate but my answer is: yes, obviously (since we should be looking at the root of the problem rather then blaming the security guard...).

 

[Benn98]

CARA DELEVINGNE: ECO-WARRIOR ON INSTAGRAM PROMOTES FAST FASHION

By Maeve Campbell
last updated: 25/10/2019 - 11:59

This week, Cara Delevingne announced a collaboration with retailer Nasty Gal, an online brand owned by Boohoo.com. Known for her wacky style, Delevingne’s decision to partner with a highstreet label was long-awaited by fans, who are purportedly “going wild” for the new collection which includes a £42 sequin party dress.

With over 43 million followers on Instagram, Cara Delevingne is the highest paid UK model, having supposedly made in the region of £21 million last year, according to Companies House documents obtained by The Sun. Of late, she has used her significant following and platform in the media to speak about the climate crisis, encouraging fans to care for the environment on Instagram.

STANDING UP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA
Delevingne poses in this recent photo describing herself an ‘Earth Protector’, after having signed a pact calling for ecocide to be considered a criminal offence.

The model has also backed the efforts of environmental activists Extinction Rebellion, posting photos to raise awareness of the peaceful protests going on in London at the moment.

In this post, she writes, “no matter who you are or where you’re from, this is an issue that will affect you and the people you love,” calling this an “ecological crisis.”

NASTY GAL FT. CARA DELEVINGNE
Given her environmental advocacy, the fact that Cara Delevingne has launched a clothing collection with Nasty Gal may leave a nasty taste in your mouth. Widely regarded to be a fast fashion brand, Nasty Gal is part of the throwaway culture typical of companies like Boohoo.com, who incidentally bought Nasty Gal in 2017. Boohoo.com has received a vast amount of criticism in recent years for selling “cheap clothes at a high cost”, as The Guardian described it in June. The same article revealed that on average, Boohoo dresses and similar items are “discarded by consumers after five weeks.” Boohoo then came under fire later that year for allegedly paying its garment workers in the UK beneath the minimum wage, which was reported to be between £3.00 and £3.50 an hour.

The 40-piece collection, entitled Nasty Gal ft. Cara Delevingne, boasts a mixture of styles including oversized blazers, leather look trousers, shirts, crop tops and party dresses. One cropped t-shirt has the words “I am a rich man” emblazoned on the front.

A quick glance at the materials used in ‘details and care’ and the majority of the collection is made from polyester (the synthetic fibre derived from coal, air, water, and petroleum). Nasty Gal declined to comment.

WHEN BOOHOO BOUGHT NASTY GAL
In defence of Nasty Gal, the brand started off as a vintage eBay shop in 2006, selling pre-owned clothing at affordable prices. It was named “Fastest Growing Retailer” in 2012 by INC Magazine and became more and more popular with a young female audience due to its cool, feisty rhetoric promoting girl power.

But two years ago, Nasty Gal joined the Boohoo family, firming placing it within the fast fashion retail sphere as it edged further away from its humble roots selling vintage clothes on eBay. As the brand itself states, “we’ve outgrown that apartment, moved to LA, and today we’re bigger and better than ever. We now carry new clothing, shoes and accessories.”

The brand now sells new clothes, with little to no focus on second-hand clothing anymore.

WHAT DO THE CRITICS SAY?
We spoke to Alice Wilby, spokesperson and coordinator for Extinction Rebellion’s ‘Boycott Fashion’ about the impact of fast fashion and the consequences of brands partnering with high profile celebrities like Cara Delevingne.

“Fast Fashion no longer just refers to cheap mass produced clothing, it sums up the rapid, rapacious way we consume and discard”, Wilby told Euronews Living.

“Boohoo are global leaders in cheap, ‘disposable’ fast fashion and celebrity endorsement has been one of their main tools for success. Enabling them to ruthlessly engage a generation of young women and men, for whom the ultimate sign of success is emulating a celebrity lifestyle on their ‘gram’, via an ever changing wardrobe of on trend clothing.”

In fact, Boohoo’s own website confirms this ever-changing nature, describing itself as a global brand that “doesn't sleep, we're 24/7 and always bringing something new with over 100 new products dropping on the daily.”

Ethical fashion app Good On You exists to call out the eco shortcomings of brands around the world, rating them on whether they have sustainable credentials. Speaking to CEO and app founder Gordon Renouf, it is clear that Boohoo.com, owner of Nasty Gal, is not doing enough for the environment.

"Despite some recent improvements Boohoo needs to do much more to address the impact on the environment and the workers in their supply chain. It's all very well using LED lights and recycling paper in your head office and stores but fashion's major impacts on climate change and other environmental issues occur in earlier stages of the production of our clothes.”

He goes on to say that Boohoo needs to do more to “address worker safety and ensure the workers in their supply chain are paid a living wage.”

Renouf concludes definitively, "Some major fashion brands have shown leadership on climate change by adopting science based targets and by reporting in detail on their carbon emissions and strategies. to reduce them. Boohoo is not one of them."

Granted, Nasty Gal does have a vintage section where materials are sourced sustainably, so they say. It also has a whole page dedicated to the recycling of old clothes through the ReGain app. Good On You CEO Gordon Renouf states “Boohoo has established a supplier code of conduct which is a first step” but it is clear that there is room for improvement.

When it comes to the celebrities involved in these endorsements, are they mere victims of a game the fast fashion sphere is just very good at playing? Cara Delevingne declined to comment when contacted by Euronews Living.

“Arguably, Cara Delevingne has been picked because her Instagram suggests to her fan base that she is an eco warrior”, says Extinction Rebellion’s Alice Wilby. “This imbues Nasty Gal with a green seal of approval, encouraging a generation of environmentally minded, ‘School Strike for Climate’ youth, to keep buying Nasty Gal, whilst steering them away from asking any deeper questions about the environmental impact of the brand.”

Ironically, parent company Boohoo.com cites its philosophy as “pretty simple: we don't take fashion or life too seriously.”

Euronews

 

[dsamg]

Carissa is baack with another outrageous post.

 

[Benn98]

Carissa is baack with another outrageous post.

'I am the black Greta Thunberg of my generation my voice will be heard'

She's off her bloody rocker, I tell you.

 

[kenndale]

What does she even have to say?

 

[Benn98]

What does she even have to say?

Well, she wants the right to outwardly attack an already terrorised group. It's akin to sinking a bunch of puppies in the canal - it's wicked. I'm not sure what trans women have done to her (and it's only trans women she's got a problem with.) They're not even booking remarkably more than most models, to the contrary, it's actually less. Is it because they're booking more than her?

Of course she's got the right to freedom of expression just as everyone else, but when that right is being used for pure old malevolence and downright breeding of hatred, then what's the point?

 

[Armani]

Amber Valletta got arrested at a climate change protest in Washington.

 

[Benn98]

I'm still struggling to grasp the true intention of the activists? Why do they continue to get arrested, will the US govt decide after a certain amount of celebrity arrests, ok, now we must address this? As in, will these arrests actually lead to tangible change? Also, are they not allowed to protest at the Supreme Court or can they do it within a specific sort of space? If it's the latter, why not jus protest there? Their effort will still gain traction. It's all so vague.

Unpopular opinion, but I think that celebrities protesting in this manner is actually distasteful in a way because they more than anything assert the privilege that comes with their names. The long term ramifications for a Jane Doe isn't as clear cut as it is for Jane Fonda who basically reached the end of a successful career or Amber Valetta who won't be vetted for criminal checks before booking her next campaign. And I've not even touched on the fact that not so long ago, certain racial groups were (are?) targeted for arrests, so to use that as a medium? Sorry, it's all very flawed. Luckily Amber had the common sense not to smile as if she's at some Cannes festival, but some of the other celebrities are. And that makes the entire thing look like a showbiz spectable.

 

[LostInNJ]

I'm still struggling to grasp the true intention of the activists? Why do they continue to get arrested, will the US govt decide after a certain amount of celebrity arrests, ok, now we must address this? As in, will these arrests actually lead to tangible change? Also, are they not allowed to protest at the Supreme Court or can they do it within a specific sort of space? If it's the latter, why not jus protest there? Their effort will still gain traction. It's all so vague.

Unpopular opinion, but I think that celebrities protesting in this manner is actually distasteful in a way because they more than anything assert the privilege that comes with their names. The long term ramifications for a Jane Doe isn't as clear cut as it is for Jane Fonda who basically reached the end of a successful career or Amber Valetta who won't be vetted for criminal checks before booking her next campaign. And I've not even touched on the fact that not so long ago, certain racial groups were (are?) targeted for arrests, so to use that as a medium? Sorry, it's all very flawed. Luckily Amber had the common sense not to smile as if she's at some Cannes festival, but some of the other celebrities are. And that makes the entire thing look like a showbiz spectable.

I look at it like this..."Normal" people get arrested at protests quite often, but those names and images aren't splashed across the news. When a celebrity (Jane Fonda, Amber Valetta) gets arrested, it makes headlines and ultimately can draw attention to the cause. In reading her caption, I did learn about what she was arrested for (let's be honest, when you hear of a celebrity being arrested, you are always curious to find out why) and with that you learn a bit about the issues at hand.

I'm not saying she went there with the intention of getting arrested, but in doing so, she has a platform to spread awareness about an issue that is important.