- Someone is putting up “No Catcalling” signs all over New York and Philadelphia. [The Independent]
- A glitch on the Balenciaga website discounted a few of the label’s usually $2,000 bags down to $200 to $400. Shoppers were obviously happy, but the folks at Balenciaga probably weren’t too thrilled. [Page Six]
- Laid off American Apparel workers are suing the company. [The Business of Fashion]
- Can’t stop, won’t stop: Kendall Jenner landed herself a Fendi campaign. [Grazia]
- SJP is back! The actress will appear in a new HBO series Divorce. [USA Today]
- Decades founder Cameron Silver has a fancy new job he won’t tell us much about. [The Hollywood Reporter]
Instagram has come under fire for its conservative rules on nudity, including censoring photos of topless women, adding momentum to the #FreetheNipple campaign, for which celebrities like Scout Willis and Miley Cyrus have shown their support. But in spite of the backlash, it appears Instagram is doubling down on its strict rules regarding nudity. “We know that there are times when people might want to share nude images that are artistic or creative in nature, but for a variety of reasons, we don’t allow nudity on Instagram. This includes photos, videos, and some digitally-created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals, and close-ups of fully-nude buttocks.” Instagram’s policies have upset breastfeeding mothers in the past, so the guidelines make an exception for photos of women feeding their children and pictures of post-mastectomy scarring.
It looks like it’s going to take a while for Instagram to give in and allow women to show their nipples on the social media site. To a degree, we understand why they would put these rules in place (hey, some people are a bit more prudish than others), but the fact that men with breasts — breasts sometimes as large or larger than some women’s – are free to post topless photos is a bit of a double standard.
So, Miley and company: soldier on. Your #FreetheNipple work is not yet done.
Michael Bublé, your grandmother’s favorite singer, is in some hot water over an Instagram post which has many people accusing him of being a pervert, misogynist and body shamer.
Bublé posted an image his wife took while they were in Miami which shows him in the foreground with an amused look on his face. In the background is a woman with very short shorts – so short that her butt cheeks are on full display. This young woman appears to be in the checkout line at a store and unaware that she is being photographed.
“There was something about this photo lu took, that seemed worthy of Instagram,” he wrote, with the hashtag #myhumps #babygotback #beautifulbum and more. Many people thought that Bublé was making fun of the woman’s figure. “I hope you and the person that took this pic have perfect bodies,” one commenter sniped. “That’s just mean to laugh at someone and then post it that you’re laughing at them.”
But is this really body shaming? At best, it’s an observation, at worst, it’s an invasion of privacy. You can argue that the woman left the house in those shorts with the intention of drawing attention (it’s not as common to see someone’s butt cheeks out, as opposed to say, extreme cleavage), but whether or not she wore the shorts as an IRL thirst trap (nothing wrong with that), it is a bit disrespectful to take pictures of people without their permission. As one commenter said, “Newsflash: wearing something considered revealing doesn’t give the right for some has-been to exploit her and ridicule her.” But, then again, there are Instagram accounts dedicated to taking pictures of unsuspecting people, some of which are celebrated. You would be hard-pressed to find backlash against an Instagram account like Hot Dudes Reading, which you can argue is a violation of privacy as none of the men photographed appear to have given consent to having their picture taken.
Bublé does have his supporters. Many commenters saw the backlash as much ado about nothing. “I so don’t understand… why the uproar! He was complimenting her butt, who cares?!” Either way, he has caused an assload of controversy over the picture, which has yet to be taken down and it doesn’t look like he will anytime soon.
UPDATE: Micheal Bublé issued a statement this afternoon regarding the backlash over the photo:
“Anybody who knows me would never misinterpret the message of the photo my wife took in Miami that seems to have caused unexpected rage by some people. I do not court controversy. But I realize that a photo that was meant to be complimentary and lighthearted has turned into a questionable issue. For the record, It hurts me deeply that anyone would think that I would disrespect women or be insulting to any human being.. I was not brought up that way and it is not in my character. I regret that there are people out there who found the photo offensive. That was not and is not my intention. Women are to be celebrated, loved, respected, honored and revered. I’ve spent my life believing that and will continue to do so.”
Are you satisfied with his apology?
The majority of spring magazine covers have been far too dark, tiresome and uninspiring. Luckily, Vogue Russia takes us to the warmer climate of Ibiza for its May cover shoot. After the magazine failed to impress with an artsy April cover featuring Natasha Poly, forum members are none too pleased with the latest issue starring bronzed goddess Emily DiDonato. Photographed by Mariano Vivanco, Emily works a khaki shirt teamed with a white skirt and contrasting gold belt, leaving us with Emmanuelle Alt styling vibes.
Unfortunately something missed the mark for our forum members. “This looks like a supplement! I really dislike these covers shot by Vivanco. The styling is dead. The background is dead. The stare is dead. And that orange color annoys me to death,” shared an annoyed MON the minute the cover surfaced.
“Not very Vogue Russia! It looks like a sub-par Bazaar cover from some random country,” added gossiping .
Forum member la veronika wasn’t impressed either. “Very boring, like a catalog cover,” she complained.
Also not showing much support was Nepenthes: “Emily looks like a goddess as usual but overall this shot lacks cover impact.”
KateTheGreatest shared the same sentiments, writing, “Not really a strong cover, maybe it would be better if someone else shot it. Also Emily is gorgeous, but she looks over Photoshopped here, especially around her eyes.”
“I feel like I’ve seen this cover a trillion times before,” criticized sore.
Check out some more shady comments and add your own here.
Who better than a fashion legend, the woman credited with starting New York Fashion Week, to be honored by Saks Fifth Avenue with an epic window display? Saks is dedicating a chunk of its storefront to Fern Mallis in celebration of her new book, Fashion Lives.
Mallis’ 92 Street Y “Fashion Icons” talks serve as the inspiration for the tome, a rich collection of musings from some of the world’s most noted and influential fashion personalities. The book includes interviews with Tom Ford, Marc Jacobs, Betsey Johnson, Bruce Weber and more. Saks is drawing from the interviews in the book and creating a set of 16 windows which will feature mannequins clad in duds from a the designers included in the book. Sounds like it’s already shaping up to be quite a diverse display.
You can already pick up Mallis’ book at Barnes and Noble, and if you’re a fan (let’s be honest, who isn’t?) of Mallis, brace yourself because she revealed to WWD that she may take her talents to broadcast TV, although nothing is yet confirmed. But for the record, if Fern does make it to T.V., you can guarantee we’ll be watching.
Not everyone is satisfied with Lane Bryant’s #ImNoAngel initiative for its Cacique brand. The plus-size retailer recently launched an underwear campaign featuring models who don’t have the traditional Victoria’s Secret body, which so far has been pretty well-received. It is quite refreshing to see women over a size 4 posing in lingerie, but for one blogger, the campaign simply wasn’t enough.
Amanda Richards penned a post on her blog arguing that Lane Bryant‘s campaign is not the bastion of positivity it seems to be. She says that the #ImNoAngel hashtag pits women of different body types against each other. She also takes issue with the lack of body diversity in the campaign itself, noting that the models are mostly a size 16 (she previously guessed their average sizes was 14) and said that their more petite frames are not representative of the Lane Bryant market, whose women are usually above a size 20.
“I don’t understand why Lane Bryant can’t opt for more diversity in their advertising, given that it’s what plus-size women want and what they have been quite literally begging for on social media,” she wrote before noting that as a white, cisgendered able-bodied woman she definitely has some privileges, but that is no excuse for Lane Bryant’s oversight. She concluded the post by taking photos of her size 18 self in underwear.
HelloGiggles got wind of Richards’ post and wrote about it, resulting in an epic battle on Facebook between Richards and Elly Mayday, one of the campaign’s models. Mayday herself took issue with Richards’ characterization of the ads, first in assuming that the models were an average size 14 (she corrected Richards with their actual sizes) and also argued that she, an ovarian cancer survivor with a larger body and a scar down the center of her stomach, is far from the representation of a traditional model – plus-sized or otherwise. She said that Richards was nitpicking the campaign and that its positive message was being eclipsed by what she believes to be splitting hairs.
Her comment sparked an entire debate on the HelloGiggles Facebook page and late yesterday, Mayday decided to delete her comments. “People are coming onto my page and attacking me and sending me some terrible messages. Thanks, but I don’t deserve these horrible things being said to me,” she wrote. “I am sorry if I offended you by saying I didn’t like the blog. It is just really annoying when something so positive is still thoroughly scrutinized. Can’t please everyone I guess! I am the [epitome] of body positivity and will continue on my endeavours. Good luck to you Amanda on yours.”
While Richards made some good points on body diversity, it does feel a little problematic for her to assert that the models in the campaign simply weren’t big enough or were shaped too nicely to be included. In attempting to make a call for body diversity, some people might read her assertion as body shaming. But she does open up a conversation about modeling – models have their jobs because their bodies fit a certain ideal. Many women don’t have that hourglass shape that some of the models in the Lane Bryant campaign have, and yes, we could all use more body diversity. But to suggest that the women weren’t big enough or “real” enough to be “No Angels” seems a bit problematic.
[via Amanda Kate Richards, Hello Giggles Facebook]