Is the Daily Mail racist?

I ask for this is a description of the sisters they\’ve got on the front page today:

The Delevingne sisters – Chloe (right), 28, Poppy (left), 26, and Cara (centre), 20 – are almost divinely privileged; willowy blondes with easy social confidence, masses of useful friends and pots of money. The sisters (pictured top right as children) were expensively schooled. First at Frances Holland School for Girls near Sloane Square, where they stood out for being particularly skinny, leggy and gorgeous even in a school full of skinny, leggy and gorgeous girls.

\”Leggy\” means long legs, thus discriminating against those of other genetic backgrounds where shorter and curvier legs are the norm. The insistence upon blondes against the melanin enhanced. Skinny against those from cultures where curves are seen as beautiful.

Obviously, the Mail should be closed down by the diversity advisers.

And being slightly more serious even I find that description over the top. Which Mail journo is having a mid life crisis then, lusting over the young so?

17 thoughts on “Is the Daily Mail racist?”

  1. Don’t think much of any of them. The one on the right in particular is around the same level of plain as Pippa Middleton. In general though, I find the current hegemonic class’s standards of beauty to be rather vapid and lacking in teh sexy. The one in the middle looks reasonably good in a “needs a sandwich” kind of a way, but look pretty ghastly in the catwalk photo.

    But then fashion models aren’t chosen for being heterosexually attractive, but rather to appeal to the tastes of gay male fashion designers. Hence, too tall, too thin, odd faces with high gonial angles and flat arses; the closest you can get to a teenage boy while still female.

    NB, “skinny” and “gorgeous” don’t belong in the same sentence.

  2. IanB,

    It’s not about the gayness. It’s about how they show off clothes. Clothes look better on stick-thin models (female designers also use stick-thin models)

    I think it explains why there’s so many gay men in fashion, though. Straight men would hire models with big tits that they wanted to have sex with.

  3. It’s not about the gayness. It’s about how they show off clothes. Clothes look better on stick-thin models (female designers also use stick-thin models)

    This is a persistent explanation that makes little sense. Firstly because, if a designer of clothes for women cannot design clothes that look good on an actual woman, he is a pretty crap clothes designer.

    Secondly, it does not explain the generally abnormal features of high fashion catwalk models- very tall, masculised skeletons, masculised facial features verging in some cases on the freakish (the wide eyed “alien” look), and so on.

    There are lots of slender women who are not suitable for fashion work, because they are slender in a feminine way (narrow torso, flared hips, etc) and a normal height. The explanation just doesn’t hold water.

  4. Ian B

    Thanks, always nice to learn a new word (gonial).

    “If a designer of clothes for women cannot design clothes that look good on an actual woman, he is a pretty crap clothes designer.”

    I understood that most catwalk couture never actually gets worn by real people (even the silly super rich people). It just highlights the designer’s seasonal concepts and a “normal” range of clothes are made based on them.

    And the mugs drop £70 at Xmas on a bottle of perfume with said designer’s name on it.

  5. Ian>

    To a large extent, the models are deliberately unattractive. The designers don’t want anything distracting from their ‘clothes’. As Shinsei says, the ‘clothes’ bear the same relation to what people actually buy as a concept car does to cars on sale. It’s about showing off ideas, not putting them into practice.

  6. So Much for Subtlety

    Shinsei67 – “I understood that most catwalk couture never actually gets worn by real people (even the silly super rich people). It just highlights the designer’s seasonal concepts and a “normal” range of clothes are made based on them. And the mugs drop £70 at Xmas on a bottle of perfume with said designer’s name on it.”

    I agree that is how the industry works, but doesn’t that just support Ian’s main point? The industry is no longer interested in clothes that look good. The days when they actually did provide a service, trying to dress expensive mutton as lamb, are gone. Instead they want media headlines that will build their brand and help them sell the perfume. Which means that they have to do something stupid or outrageous to attract said media headlines.

    So it does not matter what the models look like from a clothes point of view. Thus they can indulge their deeply repressed hatred of women in general.

    It seems to be a fairly robust explanation.

  7. Ian B,

    Secondly, it does not explain the generally abnormal features of high fashion catwalk models- very tall, masculised skeletons, masculised facial features verging in some cases on the freakish (the wide eyed “alien” look), and so on.

    They’re basically walking mannequins. Go into a shop and you’ll see clothes on mannequins, not normal women. Clothes also move more gracefully on tall models.

  8. SMFS,

    I agree that is how the industry works, but doesn’t that just support Ian’s main point? The industry is no longer interested in clothes that look good. The days when they actually did provide a service, trying to dress expensive mutton as lamb, are gone. Instead they want media headlines that will build their brand and help them sell the perfume. Which means that they have to do something stupid or outrageous to attract said media headlines.

    Some of the big couture houses (which are owned by large corporations and make more money on accessories than anything else) do this, but Stella McCartney and many other shows are wearable clothing. The problem is that your perception is based on the shows that become news stories, which are the silly ones.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Martin – “Sounds like you’ve got the ‘Right Said Fred’ brigade out the woodwork with this one, Tim.”

    Sounds like perfectly normal views held by millions of British people make you feel a little uncomfortable. Why is that do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *