@nobodyr: I'm sure it shouldn't be, and it was a controversial inclusion in the show, but if you think that the stigma of being deaf doesn't affect your career then you need to think again.
@bleedingmouths: Sure it influences her to some degree, but not her work. Yeah, deafness is a disability, but as far as modelling is concerned? Why didn't they include people whose disabilities actually directly influenced their modelling career (appearance)? I'm sure there's plenty of those people.
@nobodyr: They did. Most of the others were that way. I don't know why you are so picky about this- this woman thought her deafness affected her ability to model through the regular streams, so did the production company, so she was included. The models who were visibly disabled should have been able to take direction, hear what they are being told, so why were they included? Because they felt they could not model through the usual channels due to discrimination or a lack of support for their condition.
I use a wheelchair, and am offended that they didn't seem to put much thought into this show. This program isolates models with disabilities, which in itself is exclusionary, but can't decide even what that is. WTF? I don't know about in the UK, but here, the word disability is pretty broad. It includes mental health, diseases such as cancer and heart conditions, and other conditions that are not visible. If they wanted to limit their models to having physical disabilities, that could include someone with a head injury, which wouldn't necessarily be obvious either. If they wanted visual physical disabilities only, then that wouldn't be fair to the blind...but if they had a cane or a dog, would that work? It's just so absurd any way you frame it. Showing the life of an actual model as Dodai suggested would make a much better show and teach people a lot more about acceptance than this would. This comes across as awkward and offensive, even to the participants.
This post is one example of an issue that I think we really need to talk about. Why is it so important to create a world in which "everyone can feel beautiful"?
I agree that today's beauty standards are often unrealistic. That goes without saying. But there is a difference between making standards of beauty more realistic, and saying that absolutely every person (or at least every female person, since this is most often a female-centric issue) deserves to be thought of as "beautiful". In my opinion, no matter how you slice it, no beauty standard is going to consider EVERY person to be attractive. And why should it? Beauty is just one of MANY good qualities that it is possible for a person to have. We don't go around saying that every person deserves to be thought of as intelligent, or that every person deserves to be thought of as good at sports or art or science or whatever else, when it is clear that many people are not intelligent, many people are not good at certain things, etc. NO ONE has every good quality in the world, human beings are imperfect and we are all endowed with certain gifts and certain shortcomings. We should all be able to acknowledge that.
So why should beauty be any different ? It seems to me that the problem is that our society has elevated beauty to the point that people think that if they can feel beautiful, then their lives will be drastically improved. But what about people who are aware of their beauty and are still unhappy? This is hardly unheard of- think of the supermodels who commit suicide, and the celebrities who fall into drug abuse, not because they are unaware of their beauty but because BEAUTY DOES NOT EQUAL HAPPINESS.
What we SHOULD be doing is not trying to build a society in which people with obvious physical flaws feel 'beautiful', but instead a society in which people can know they are not beautiful and still value themselves as much as people who are beautiful. Obviously beauty standards will vary between societies, and what is considered beautiful in North America will be different from what is beautiful in Zambia or Mongolia or wherever else. And unrealistic beauty standards should be treated as a problem. But so should the idea that people who are not beautiful are somehow less worthy than people who are, regardless of what is considered 'beautiful' in a particular society. If we focus on this, maybe people won't need to try so hard to "feel beautiful" in the first place.
The issue over what constitutes 'disability' on this show is extremely interesting to me. I'm legally disabled, but you wouldn't tell it by looking at. I have cystic fibrosis, and I have a disabled parking placard and what not. I try not to use it, but on occasions I do, or when I have to reveal that for all intents and purposes I am legally disabled, I get the dirtiest looks- as if I'm not disabled enough for people's mind concept. I think it's positive to include girls that aren't what you typically think of as looking disabled (the deaf girls), because it has more of the impact of "Well, disability isn't what you thought it would be."
There was an article I found via one of the Village Voice's now defunct sex blogs about "alternative models," disabled models, plus size models (Velvet D'Amour specifically), and trans models. The author complained that underneath the fat, tattoos, visible disabilities, etc., these people were only models because they had conventionally beautiful features and bone structures...
Well, isn't that kind of the point? If we started saying that everyone could be models, would it not make the profession kind of meaningless?
I went to Nuit Blanche in Toronto 2 months ago, and was pleasantly uncomfortable with an exhibit that had people with various disabilities in the nude. The artist said that he himself was disabled and has a hard time being thought of as a sexual being, and someone with very regular desires. Each photo had a section undedrneath and a lot of these people think the same thing. There are many people that look at the disability and define a person as the disability, so maybe a show that has these disabled women as objects of desire isn't a terrible thing.
I saw this last year and it absolutely infuriated me. It's kind of like those Gok Wan shoes, or those 'What Not to Wear' type programmes. Sure, they might 'make women feel better about themselves', but they make women feel better about themselves by getting them to conform to damaging patriarchal notions that a woman's worth is determined by her appeal to men, and her attractiveness. I don't know if any of you have seen Gok Wan, but he basically gives women makeovers and then gets them to pose naked in sexy shots, under the guise of 'celebrating real (cringe) women'... but it's not, it's just saying that 'real' (as opposed to those fake models?) women can be objectified too. This is kind of the same thing... hey! You're disabled, but that doesn't mean you're excempt from the constrictions of patriarchy and can't be objectified aswell.
The odd thing about the Nordstrom catalog is in the next frame the same model who was in the wheel chair seems to be standing up (you don't see her fact but she is wearing the same outfit).
@KetchupFiend: I thought the same thing. I don't know if it actually is her, but because of the two shots above (the same woman twice) and the shirt, it seems to be her, or at least gives a strong impression that it's her. It's very strange.
What bugs me about shows like this--those that are supposed to make people more confident despite something about them that isn't considered conventionally beautiful--is that they all seem to use a competitive reality show format that's ultimately based on looks. So they're saying, you guys are beautiful too, but this week one of you isn't quite beautiful enough, so pack your bags. There's something wonky about that message.
This is one reason (I know, the show's still pretty horrible) I can appreciate Tough Love. At least those women are focusing on learning they can find/have a healthy relationship--not competing with each other to prove they can find a healthy relationship better than all the other girls.
I don't know. I loved this show when it first aired, I thought it was great, but part of why I thought it was great was because I've grown up with people with disabilities and I know how the world looks at them. My best friend's sister is deaf, and everyone treats her like an idiot, but she's not. Currently one of my best friends is in a wheelchair, and we get the stink eye a lot. People stare, people whisper...so I would say that while to you and I a person in a wheelchair may not make us uncomfortable, it does to a lot of other people out there.
I commented before I saw your post. I have a couple friends that have disabilities and they say they have a hard time with people not defining them as a disability.
Please please please, watch this before you just assume that it 'doesn't actually break down any barriers'. I watched the whole thing last summer and it really left a lasting impression on me.
Why would you take a blog's word for it before watching? Sophie (the girl in the wheelchair) has gone on to feature in many other television programmes, launching an entire career in advocacy around disabled rights and visibility. This show gave her that start, and gave her a voice.
Why shouldn't we juxtapose beauty and disability? Taking a few nasty soundbites as a representation of the whole thing is completely unfair to all the women who took part in this worthwhile programme.
@Dodai: And it's true, the flippancy of some of the people involved in the show really make it sound like that. It would just be sad if nobody watched it at all, because it sounds like something that, in my opinion, it aint.
How about, see it as a mystery! Will it be shite, or...not? Only one way to find out!
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: I'm actually surprised that they haven't there hasn't been a plus size model show- with plus size model superstar Emme hosting. But maybe she's too busy hosting More to Love.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
I agree that today's beauty standards are often unrealistic. That goes without saying. But there is a difference between making standards of beauty more realistic, and saying that absolutely every person (or at least every female person, since this is most often a female-centric issue) deserves to be thought of as "beautiful". In my opinion, no matter how you slice it, no beauty standard is going to consider EVERY person to be attractive. And why should it? Beauty is just one of MANY good qualities that it is possible for a person to have. We don't go around saying that every person deserves to be thought of as intelligent, or that every person deserves to be thought of as good at sports or art or science or whatever else, when it is clear that many people are not intelligent, many people are not good at certain things, etc. NO ONE has every good quality in the world, human beings are imperfect and we are all endowed with certain gifts and certain shortcomings. We should all be able to acknowledge that.
So why should beauty be any different ? It seems to me that the problem is that our society has elevated beauty to the point that people think that if they can feel beautiful, then their lives will be drastically improved. But what about people who are aware of their beauty and are still unhappy? This is hardly unheard of- think of the supermodels who commit suicide, and the celebrities who fall into drug abuse, not because they are unaware of their beauty but because BEAUTY DOES NOT EQUAL HAPPINESS.
What we SHOULD be doing is not trying to build a society in which people with obvious physical flaws feel 'beautiful', but instead a society in which people can know they are not beautiful and still value themselves as much as people who are beautiful. Obviously beauty standards will vary between societies, and what is considered beautiful in North America will be different from what is beautiful in Zambia or Mongolia or wherever else. And unrealistic beauty standards should be treated as a problem. But so should the idea that people who are not beautiful are somehow less worthy than people who are, regardless of what is considered 'beautiful' in a particular society. If we focus on this, maybe people won't need to try so hard to "feel beautiful" in the first place.
12/02/09
DISABLED MODDLES: JUST LIKE REGULAR MODDLES
12/02/09
12/02/09
Well, isn't that kind of the point? If we started saying that everyone could be models, would it not make the profession kind of meaningless?
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
This is one reason (I know, the show's still pretty horrible) I can appreciate Tough Love. At least those women are focusing on learning they can find/have a healthy relationship--not competing with each other to prove they can find a healthy relationship better than all the other girls.
12/02/09
12/02/09
I commented before I saw your post. I have a couple friends that have disabilities and they say they have a hard time with people not defining them as a disability.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/01/09
Why would you take a blog's word for it before watching? Sophie (the girl in the wheelchair) has gone on to feature in many other television programmes, launching an entire career in advocacy around disabled rights and visibility. This show gave her that start, and gave her a voice.
Why shouldn't we juxtapose beauty and disability? Taking a few nasty soundbites as a representation of the whole thing is completely unfair to all the women who took part in this worthwhile programme.
12/01/09
12/01/09
How about, see it as a mystery! Will it be shite, or...not? Only one way to find out!
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
12/01/09
Beautiful AND they don't talk! One step closer to the perfect woman! What a lucky guy...
/sarcasm
12/01/09