Hunting too Butch for Models, Go back to the Salon?

[illram]

How about if he old pictures of himself hunting at 16? I'm not sure anyone would care. Sure, if the twittermob came out strong enough they might feel they had to, but I don't think the twittermob would have the attention span for it. Do you? I could be wrong.

Well I think it might be a different reaction if the pictures were far removed in time from his position currently. E.g. a 40 year old male exec outed with 24 year old pictures might be more able to explain them away as youthful indiscretions. The unique publicity surrounding this person's hiring are also relevant methinks.

Weren't these hunting photos relatively recent?

 

[kochman]

Yes, but, she isn't even an adult yet.
It was a FAMILY trip. It's not like she saved all her pesos and schekels to go on this trip.

 

[metatron]

What?
She went hunting, big deal. It's not like she runs tours for a living. I guarantee her family, which clearly has enough money to send her to Brazil for soccer games, paid for it, etc... Really not a big deal. I don't think people were going to boycott L'Oreal because some model went hunting once.

Once again:
I suspect that the geographical aspect matters.

If she had been hunting deer or rabbits or whatever in Belgium it would be a different thing. It could be, you know, part of her cultural background. She could hardly be seen as going out of her way to "harm animals".
But trophy hunting God knows where in Africa?
Can one go any farther out of their way?
Could one be on any less solid ground potentially claiming some sort of cultural heritage?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well I think it might be a different reaction if the pictures were far removed in time from his position currently. E.g. a 40 year old male exec outed with 24 year old pictures might be more able to explain them away as youthful indiscretions. The unique publicity surrounding this person's hiring are also relevant methinks.

Weren't these hunting photos relatively recent?

Relatively, yes. So your vibe would be that hunting is so stigmatized at this point than any prominent member of the cosmetics industry caught up in the public eye as participating in it is probably going to be drummed out whether or not that issue has anything to do with animal testing?

 

[kochman]

Once again:
I suspect that the geographical aspect matters.

If she had been hunting deer or rabbits or whatever in Belgium it would be a different thing. It could be, you know, part of her cultural background. She could hardly be seen as going out of her way to "harm animals".
But trophy hunting God knows where in Africa?
Can one go any farther out of their way?
Could one be on any less solid ground potentially claiming some sort of cultural heritage?

So she should have told her family, "No, I won't go to Africa and at some point during the trip be involved with hunting, you barbarians!"

At 16?

Come on... that's just silly.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Hopefully, she learned a valuable lesson from all this. If she wants the big bucks being an international celebrity, after being raised in a life of apparent opulent extravagance which included family hunting trips to Africa so she could bag her own big game, she should be a bit more careful what she posts on the internet.

I really feel sorry for her. This might cause her to have other difficulties being an extraordinarly well paid model. Just imagine if she needs to get a real job with one of her father's friends that doesn't directly involve superficiality?

 

[kochman]

Someone's bitter...

 

[Narz]

Zzzzz, dullest feminist thread yet. They're an image company, thus they can fire a model for whatever reason they want if she doesn't meet their image.

As for sexism, of course a makeup company is going to be anti-women, they're whole goal of existence is to make women feel unattractive without their products.

 

[Farm Boy]

As for sexism, of course a makeup company is going to be anti-women, they're whole goal of existence is to make women feel unattractive without their products.

I suppose I could buy this if it's sold well enough. An empowered and sexy woman "roughing it" and getting dirty doesn't really tie the cliche.

But thanks Narz, appreciated ya jerk.

 

[kochman]

Zzzzz, dullest feminist thread yet. They're an image company, thus they can fire a model for whatever reason they want if she doesn't meet their image.

I agree, however, the situation has become stickier recently.
One could argue it's discimination against a lifestyle. Who is judging who is right or wrong?

****

Honestly, didn't look into it much, but most wildlife population is managed these days. This prevents starving to death due to overpopulation. To hunt the animal, you need to have a license, which is a hefty fee paid to the state.

Since the animals are slated to die anyway, is it wrong for a poor African nation to earn money off of it? Rather than pay park rangers to do it?

 

[Narz]

I suppose I could buy this if it's sold well enough. An empowered and sexy woman "roughing it" and getting dirty doesn't really tie the cliche.

Getting dirty? She's not killing the animal with her bare hands, probably shooting it from the back of a motor vehicle & having it sanitized with L'Oreal cleansers before she even gets near it.

But thanks Narz, appreciated ya jerk.

No offense dude. Just saying that dubbing this sexism is quite a stretch.

 

[Narz]

I agree, however, the situation has become stickier recently.
One could argue it's discimination against a lifestyle. Who is judging who is right or wrong?

****

Honestly, didn't look into it much, but most wildlife population is managed these days. This prevents starving to death due to overpopulation. To hunt the animal, you need to have a license, which is a hefty fee paid to the state.

Since the animals are slated to die anyway, is it wrong for a poor African nation to earn money off of it? Rather than pay park rangers to do it?

In a perfect world you'd let the tribal people of the land hunt the wild animals but rich foreigners add more to the state coffers I understand.

 

[illram]

Relatively, yes. So your vibe would be that hunting is so stigmatized at this point than any prominent member of the cosmetics industry caught up in the public eye as participating in it is probably going to be drummed out whether or not that issue has anything to do with animal testing?

Probably yes, regardless of the merits of that position or not. Animal rights is a huge issue in corporate PR. Especially in the fashion industry as someone pointed out.

However the other variables as mentioned are white people hunting in Africa vs anywhere else, a model who is hired to be an image as opposed to a no name faceless executive, whether the image in question is recent or very old, etc. There is a lot to it. But that just goes to degree of PR face-saving needed, I think.

 

[Farm Boy]

Just saying that dubbing this sexism is quite a stretch.

It might be! I'm just not sure that I'm completely on board with Illram in thinking anyone would care if this were a seventeen year old dude posting a picture of his 16 year old self on a trip with his family. It seems like he might get more leeway. There was a female actor on SNL that got canned after F-bombing on the air accidentally in an early skit and I pay at least partial credence to the argument that if she were male it probably wouldn't have gotten her fired.

Maybe it is the difference between the hiree being a model as opposed to an office drone. And if that is a difference of note I'd still probably have concerns with this just like I do when traditionally female employment like administrative assistants or waitresses get shat on and people respond, "it's not the gender it's the occupation." Well, if the occupation is dominated by one gender how do you neatly dice the issue into separate pieces. You don't really.

 

[Narz]

"If it was a dude" he'd have to do more than just look pretty at a soccer game anyway. The chance of a girl being plucking out a of crowd for her looks is slim to none, the chance for a boy is pretty much zero.

 

[kochman]

"If it was a dude" he'd have to do more than just look pretty at a soccer game anyway. The chance of a girl being plucking out a of crowd for her looks is slim to none, the chance for a boy is pretty much zero.

Woah! Hold on... happens to me regularly. I have simply chosen not to accept the easy money and plod along in an office day after day for middle class wages.

 

[Farm Boy]

"If it was a dude" he'd have to do more than just look pretty at a soccer game anyway. The chance of a girl being plucking out a of crowd for her looks is slim to none, the chance for a boy is pretty much zero.

Well ok, but this reads pretty much as "Of course this is sexist. The whole thing is sexist. Why should we care if a bunch of pigs in the cosmetics industry continue being sexist?"

Though maybe their just selling to society's innate bias and we should forgive them that, which is why I was uneasy with the story in the first place. But that innate bias is probably it. What was the last viral "hot guy" story I read? The one about the mug shot of the guy that's going to prison for a decade if convicted. If that's it, still not sure why I should be comfortable with it. Not sure why it should be ok that unlinked issues should be so easily misrepresented and misunderstood in a biased way.

 

[metatron]

So she should have told her family, "No, I won't go to Africa and at some point during the trip be involved with hunting, you barbarians!"

At 16?

Come on... that's just silly.

[disclaimer: Please appreciate that, even while being a vegetarian myself, i have little sympathy for so called "animal rights activists", Peta, PCRM and other assorted hacks.]

Not really.

Whether you like it or not: This has... a taste.
Really, how could you do worse?
Get the full-on colonial outfit and go on a quest for some hidden treasure in one of them "forgotten cities"?

And whether it's on the parents is not the point. Actually, that this is not the result of some sort of youthful thirst for adventure of her own, but something that runs in the family makes it worse, if anything.

And fundamentally one isn't entitled to be provided with equal opportunity by a fashion company.

Let me create a more extreme example regarding both points (the age and the equal opportunity):
Suppose we had an otherwise analogous case of a young woman whose parents were White Pride activists (with certain tattoos and everything). There wouldn't even be pictures. The name of the young woman would merely appear on the list of participants of some (ostensibly harmless) event.
In that case, you may still feel bad for the girl missing the opportunity. You may still feel that it's unfair to her.
But you'd not blame the fashion company for that unfairness.
You'd blame the parents.
And so do i in this case.

Hunting in Africa? Not illegal. Not even necessarily immoral. Sure. But it can easily be bad PR.
You want your kids to have very specific and exceptional high paying carreers that are all about representation?
Then maybe don't make them do it. Duh.
You want your daughter to become leader of Texas Republicans?
Don't raise her atheist. Duh.

Generally this is very little about "fair" and very much about "duh".
Particularly you as a conservative (i suspect) should embrace the concept of people not being entitled to any specific highly exceptional job.
Really, as soon as an unwed mother is LDS president and there's a transsexual NRA chairperson we'll get back to you people on this roaming-the-veld-for-L'Oréal business.

This doesn't even contradict non-discrimination all that much: If you want to be a carpenter, an accountant or a librarian, you should be free to hunt whatever you want, moonlight as a gay porn star, or petition the government "re: UFOs".
But if you want to be chosen by a group of people or a company to represent them, to be their public image, you'll have to put up with unreasonable demands, be they "liberal" or "conservative".
Sure, there are jobs where it can be debated what standard applies (say in case of the receptionist at a health club or a spa (or CEO of a tech company)).
But model for L'Oréal isn't one of them.

Well, that's certainly how it's presented, they probably believe it true, and it might be true. But do you think that models are held to the same standards as a male executive? As in, if this was a male manager in the firm would it even matter? Would it simply not be news?

I could totally see them not go through with hiring a Belgian uber-white male model her age in the same context.

There was a female actor on SNL that got canned after F-bombing on the air accidentally in an early skit and I pay at least partial credence to the argument that if she were male it probably wouldn't have gotten her fired.

I'm not familiar with that particular controversy, but on face value i have a way easier time imagining some gender-based double standard in that case.

 

[Farm Boy]

I could totally see them not go through with hiring a Belgian uber-white male model her age in the same context.

Well, it's certainly entirely plausible that I'm unfamiliar enough with the cosmopolitan market to underestimate the depth of ignorance when it comes to animal husbandry in underdeveloped and underfunded areas of the world. It doesn't make much sense to claim that a population of wild animals that needs control should be controlled by paying locals local wages from the coffers to do it when you can charge Europeans much higher rates to bring money into the system from outside and employ guides at the same time to do it. It'd still be the horrible PR that you're laying out, but it'd be really really stupid. I suppose you could make a corruption argument that the money doesn't go anywhere good, but I would think if the corruption argument is going to apply then it is going to apply regardless of where the money is coming from/going.

 

[metatron]

Well, it's certainly entirely plausible that I'm unfamiliar enough with the cosmopolitan market to underestimate the depth of ignorance when it comes to animal husbandry in underdeveloped and underfunded areas of the world. It doesn't make much sense to claim that a population of wild animals that needs control should be controlled by paying locals local wages from the coffers to do it when you can charge Europeans much higher rates to bring money into the system from outside and employ guides at the same time to do it. It'd still be the horrible PR that you're laying out, but it'd be really really stupid. I suppose you could make a corruption argument that the money doesn't go anywhere good, but I would think the corruption argument is going to apply then it is going to apply regardless of where the money is coming from/going.

You are talking merits. This isn't about merits. It's about context and feelings and whatnot (a.k.a. "stupid").

Once more:
I suspect this is not purely about animal welfare but also has a fair bit of post-colonial awkwardness to it. Never mind L'Oréal would hardly ever say so in a press release.

You may not expect that. Sure. Welcome to my amazement regarding Sombrero-gate.