Vogue magazine editors pledge to use 'healthy' models - Polidicks

I defined prevalent up above. In this context, it means the predominant X in group Y. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] Also suck it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35917263]I defined prevalent up above. In this context, it means the predominant X in group Y. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] Also suck it.[/QUOTE] Prevalent means widespread. Predominant and powerful I assume are synonyms, which don't exactly mean the same thing(giant vs enormous). Either way, the semantics of the word isn't that important.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35917102]And a New York Times blog is not a very credible scientific source if you'd like to go into specifics. [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] I can make paragraphs watch this WHAT NOW PENDEJO [editline]11th May 2012[/editline] Also 30-40% isn't predominate either.[/QUOTE] I'm not gonna comment on the numbers, but saying that 30 to 40% isn't prevalent is just bullshit. A desease caught by 30-40% of the population, is what I would call widespread.

I know i'm a bit late here, and I can't be bothered reading every page, but why do the majority of people seem to be responding negatively to this news? I know that fashion media does affect people's perception of body image, both for males and females, but surely a step towards promoting a healthier body image is a good thing?

[QUOTE=RobbL;35955347]I know i'm a bit late here, and I can't be bothered reading every page, but why do the majority of people seem to be responding negatively to this news? I know that fashion media does affect people's perception of body image, both for males and females, but surely a step towards promoting a healthier body image is a good thing?[/QUOTE] Most of the people's acclaim here for Vogue's decision to switch to using "healthy" models isn't because they actually care about the welfare about the models themselves, it's because they just simply prefer the way they look compared to the previous ones, which puts us right back to the issue of women still being treated as objects.

[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;35958642]Most of the people's acclaim here for Vogue's decision to switch to using "healthy" models isn't because they actually care about the welfare about the models themselves, it's because they just simply prefer the way they look compared to the previous ones, which puts us right back to the issue of women still being treated as objects.[/QUOTE] People are just saying that as well as just being healthier, models who aren't underweight also look better too. Looks is what the fashion industry is about after all. I don't see what this particular story has to do with women being treated as objects if i'm being totally honest

[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;35958642]Most of the people's acclaim here for Vogue's decision to switch to using "healthy" models isn't because they actually care about the welfare about the models themselves, it's because they just simply prefer the way they look compared to the previous ones, which puts us right back to the issue of women still being treated as objects.[/QUOTE] Modeling is a job. Most jobs treat humans like objects be you a man or woman. Saying only women are treated like objects in a job is silly. Jobs hire people who are fit(pun not intended) for the job.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35968685]Modeling is a job. Most jobs treat humans like objects be you a man or woman. Saying only women are treated like objects in a job is silly. Jobs hire people who are fit(pun not intended) for the job.[/QUOTE] Unless you've a invaluable employee. But you're not invaluable if you work at a fast-food joint or similar, so yeah.

[QUOTE=Van-man;35968744]Unless you've a invaluable employee. But you're not invaluable if you work at a fast-food joint or similar, so yeah.[/QUOTE] Yes unless. I am quite sure models are not invaluable.

How about you just show the item and not the women wearing the item, or at least show the whole woman. Not just bits and pieces likes its a slab of meat. [editline]15th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35968799]Yes unless. I am quite sure models are not invaluable.[/QUOTE] Seeing as how only 5% of females have the model physique, yeah, yeah they are.

[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;35968807] Seeing as how only 5% of females have the model physique, yeah, yeah they are.[/QUOTE] Except you don't need model physique to be a model. And since vogue will use "healthy" models, I doubt the will care much about physique on that level.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35968685]Modeling is a job. Most jobs treat humans like objects be you a man or woman. Saying only women are treated like objects in a job is silly. Jobs hire people who are fit(pun not intended) for the job.[/QUOTE] I know, people never moan about how factory workers are dehumanised because they're treated like 'tools', or how football players are dehumanised because they're reduced to a list of stats in computer and card games. I could go on forever making comparisons, but you should get the gist of it

[QUOTE=RobbL;35968984]I know, people never moan about how factory workers are dehumanised because they're treated like 'tools', or how football players are dehumanised because they're reduced to a list of stats in computer and card games. I could go on forever making comparisons, but you should get the gist of it[/QUOTE]They're mostly men, who cares.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35969030]They're mostly men, who cares.[/QUOTE] Depends, there's a seafood processing plant near me where around 75% of the workforce are women in their late 30's to early 50's. But that's also the only factory I've seen where a majority of the workforce are female.

The thing is, there is no sexism. Women are not treated as objects. Both genders are. And not because of their gender, but because that's how most jobs are. Your individuality is rarely important and you're a better worker when you're an object.