It is impossible to tell for certain whether or not Swedish-French supermodel Filippa Hamilton was indeed sacked because she was ‘too fat’ as she claims.
Nevertheless, the cancellation of her contract with Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. highlights an interesting issue – is it ethical to sack models on the basis of weight?
I am in two minds on this. On one hand, the sacking of anyone based around body-shape considerations does raise distirbing issues. Then again, models are hired specifically for their beauty and it would not be reasonable to expect clothing man manufacturers or anyone else to continue to employ those who are not able to maintain their good looks.
(Luxury lifestyle firm Ralph Lauren recently terminated Hamilton’s contract she had been with the company for six years. Hamilton claims to have been told that she was sacked because she was ‘too fat.’ Ralph Lauren claims that the dismissal related not to her appearance but rather to an inability on her part to meet her obligations under her contract)
Beauty – an occupational requirement
In most professions, people are employed on the basis of their ability to perform a specific function – as opposed to how handsome/beautiful they may or may not be (though good looks are an indisputable advantages). Any termination of their employment for reasons other than a lack of ability to adequately perform their function would be completely unfair.
But modeling is different. Models are hired specifically because of their beauty. Physical attractiveness is an occupational requirement, and it would not be reasonable to expect clothing manufacturers or any other firms to continue to use the services of individuals who are not able to maintain their good looks.
(That said, I would certainly question any assumption which says that models who are not super-slim cannot be physically attractive (see below).
Also, please note that my comments do not relate to Hamilton in particular in any way – these are general comments only)
Disturbing consequences
That said, the practice of firing models based on weight does raise serious concerns:
• Health concerns for the models themselves.
If the practice of sacking models for being ‘too fat’ becomes commonplace, then fear of this occurring may feel pressure to adopt drastic measures relating to weight control and diet – measures which may be seriously detrimental to their health over the longer term.
• Reinforcing negative stereotypes.
At a broader level, such a practice also serves to reinforce stereotypes which are not necessarily desirable.
Women should be encouraged to aim for a healthy weight achieved by sensible patterns relating to diet, exercise and lifestyle – not to fit some typecast about being unrealistically super thin.
Moreover, people in general should be encouraged to be happy with who they are, regardless of their body shape or size.
No one should be made to feel inadequate based on their clothing size or body shape.
• Who says ‘super slim’ is always more attractive?
Yes, beauty is an occupational requirement for models. But I certainly question any assumption that anyone (women in particular) has to be ‘super thin’ in order to be attractive.
Who says super slim is always more attractive? Not me.
Personally, I would not say that in general that I myself find women are super thin to be necessarily more physically attractive than those who have a healthy build and a normal, healthy weight. Moreover, from my own perspective, there are other attributes, such as attitude as well as neatness and appropriateness of gromming, which are far more important to me in this regard than any weight related considerations.
Any assumption about models who are not super thin not being physically attractive is highly questionable in my view.
Conclusion
Despite these concerns, I still can’t get past the idea that beauty is an occupational requirement in modeling and employers should not be expected to continue the employment of individuals who are not able to meet this requirement.
I am undecided. What do you think?
Recent Comments