You are here

More absurdity from Gisele Bundchen: families, not the fashion industry to blame for anorexia!

Are families to blame for anorexia?  Yes, according to Gisele Bundchen!  Previously, she criticized skinny fashion models for not eating enough, and glossed over the fact that high-fashion models are required by fashion designers to maintain low body weight, i.e., fashion designers deserve the blame.

Whereas it is true that a number of girls/women suffering from anorexia have family problems, why in the world would family problems cause women to undereat?  It turns out that some women with perfectionist attitudes and family problems subscribe to the belief that their problems would go away if they were perfect in some way, and the standard of “perfection” that they decide to emulate is the skinny standard of the fashion industry.  Families are obviously not responsible for conveying the impression that perfection lies in skinny looks; this responsibility lies with the fashion industry.  On the other hand, it should not be assumed that all instances of anorexia among women result from the influence of skinny high-fashion models.    

The report:

SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- Supermodel Gisele Bundchen has entered the growing anorexia debate in Brazil, saying families are to blame -- not the fashion industry.

"I never suffered this problem because I had a very strong family base," Bundchen was quoted as saying in Friday's edition of O Globo newspaper. "The parents are responsible, not fashion."

The 26-year-old model was in Brazil for the annual Fashion Rio, a weeklong showcase of the country's top designers.

Anorexia nervosa, a disorder characterized by an abnormal fear of becoming obese, became a hot issue in Brazil after four young women died from it last month, including model Ana Carolina Reston, 21. The 5-foot-8 (1.72-meter) model weighed 88 pounds (40 kilograms) at the time of her death.

Splashed across the front pages of newspapers nationwide, anorexia has become a morbid fascination for Brazilians, and was even the theme of a popular TV soap opera. It also sparked a debate within Brazil's fashion industry that has long presented the rail-thin model as the paragon of female beauty.

"Everybody knows the standard for models is to be thin," Bundchen said. "But you can't generalize and say that all models are anorexic."

Bundchen, who began a three-month modeling job in Japan when she was 14, said family support was key to her.

"You leave home, the protection of your parents, but you still know you have their support," said the Brazilian, who has five sisters.

Comment: No Gisele, nobody is generalizing that all fashion models are anorexic.



eventually smart people learn to rely on themselves to parse out what is healthy and what isnt. if you continue to blame the fashion industry, you are the one furthering the idea that people are not responsible for their own health.

if you care about people's health, the ultimate lesson you should be teaching people is that they (and their families) are responsible for their own health. encouraging self-reliance is more healthy than encouraging the eradication of unhealthy imagery. if you discourage unhealthy imagery, you are teaching people that the problem is the imagery, when the actual problem is lack of critical thinking on the part of the people who are being influenced. a good critical thinker is immune to unhealthy imagery.

there is a market for man-faced models among gays and hetero women. so be it. beauty is subjective. it isnt your place to tell anyone what real beauty is.

Dave: Blaming the fashion industry for what it is responsible for does not absolve people of personal responsibility for their health. Even people with healthy lifestyles will suffer health problems if a neighborhood industrial facility is emitting a lot of pollutants. In other words, whereas people do have some control over their lifestyle, they are not responsible for non-lifestyle-associated factors that affect health.

As far as critical thinking goes, it is not obvious why fashion models look the way they do unless people have some background information. I don’t believe that I am lacking with respect to critical thinking, but when I was a kid, I wondered what is up with the looks of fashion models and what do people see in them to use them as models; I didn’t have a clue. I understood the above average masculinization among fashion models after I found out that the fashion business is dominated by homosexual men. I understood the typically skinniness of high-fashion models after I found out that sexual interest in underage children is notably higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals, and that there are undoubtedly a sufficient number of pederasts in powerful positions in the fashion industry so as to result in the central tendency among high-fashion models approximate the looks of adolescent boys. Critical thinking ability without background knowledge would not help one make the inferences above. If the negative effects of high-fashion imagery are to be undermined, then one should not assume that people have the requisite critical thinking ability and background knowledge; one should educate the masses; some people don’t need the education, but others do.

On the other hand, there is a lot that is objective about beauty and there is no market for man-faced female models among heterosexual women (see evidence).

terrible analogy. you cant avoid pollutants in your neighborhood. but you can easily look at something and not try to emulate it. you are continuing to operate under the assumption that people are way too stupid to make decisions for themselves and nothing is their fault.

if i watch a race on tv and then go out and drive like a maniac, you dont blame the racing industry. the most important lesson to learn here is individual responsibility, but that is the opposite of what you are claiming. you are continuing to place the responsibility to raise mentally healthy people on the fashion industry. that is a mistake.

you say "why in the world would family problems cause women to undereat?"

the answer is obvious, the family has not properly taught critical thinking skills, and has instilled enough insecurity in the children that they have screwy values. that is clearly a family, not a fashion industry issue. man-face giselle is absolutely right.

you say:Quote:

"there is a lot that is objective about beauty"

you do not understand what the word "objective" means. all statements about topics like beauty are purely subjective. your claims about "real" beauty are meaningless from an empirical standpoint. your statements only reflect your likes and dislikes.

i think if you care about women's health, a better attitude to take would be to ignore the fashion industry, and teach people that what models do doesnt really matter. they could all be deathly ill from malnutrition, and it should have no bearing on anyone else's life but theirs. they live their live, you live yours, that is a healthy plan.

Dave: The analogy is reasonable. If a neighborhood industry is emitting pollutants, some people will be able to move to another neighborhood, but some will be stuck there and have to suffer regardless of how healthy their self-chosen lifestyle is. Similarly, teenage girls and young women do not have control over skinny women earning a lot of money as models and having their pictures splashed all over. Some individuals are more impressionable than others, and if skinny models are being glorified by the fashion industry, some (the equivalent of those that are stuck in the neighborhood in the analogy) are bound to associate skinniness with desirability and subsequently attempt to acquire the trait. If one is convinced that the characteristic sought is highly desirable and of value, then even though one could avoid acquiring it, why would one refrain?

There is simply no assumption here that people are way too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Like I said before, and something that you have completely ignored, without background information, i.e., the gay factor, it is not at all obvious why fashion models have to be skinny. People lacking knowledge about the gay factor are not necessarily stupid or lacking in critical thinking skills. When skinniness is being glorified, some females will not see it as undesirable if they are merely told that it is unhealthy, looks bad, represents media oppression, etc. because they see these skinny women in lofty imagery, portrayed as perfect or near-perfect. Nobody is saying that eating disorders are entirely the fault of the fashion industry, but the fashion industry is most certainly responsible for making skinniness desirable to some girls and women, and deserves blame on this count.

Gisele’s statement was condemned by numerous eating disorders researchers, which you should read about because her statement was vacuous. Your own reasoning is no less absurd. If parents fail to instill critical thinking skills in their offspring and raise children that do no feel secure in the word, why would the children be prompted to undereat?

When I said that there is a lot that is objective about beauty, I cited a link, and here it is again; the link leads to numerous pages within this site where empirical data from peer-reviewed journals is cited to show that most people agree about what constitutes beauty. Don’t tell me that my argument is subjective, merely reflecting my likes and dislikes, unless you can refute the evidence cited and prove your contention.

Regarding your suggestion that women should be told to ignore the fashion industry and that what models do don’t matter, do you believe that nobody has thought of this before and tried it? These elements have been part of educational measures to reduce unnecessary dieting among girls and young women for a long time, but guess what? These measures have been long-term failures; evidence:


Paxton SJ. A prevention program for disturbed eating and body dissatisfaction in adolescent girls: a 1 year follow-up. Health Educ Res 1993;8:43-51.

Carter JC, Stewart DA, Dunn VJ, et al. Primary prevention of eating disorders: might it do more harm than good? Int J Eat Disord 1997;22(2):167-72.

Mann T, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Huang K, et al. Are two interventions worse than none? Joint primary and secondary prevention of eating disorders in college females. Health Psychol 1997;16(3):215-25.

Stewart DA, Carter JC, Drinkwater J, et al. Modification of eating attitudes and behavior in adolescent girls: a controlled study. Int J Eat Disord 2001;29(2):107-18.

Baranowski MJ, Hetherington MM. Testing the efficacy of an eating disorder prevention program. Int J Eat Disord 2001;29(2):119-24.

Should anyone be surprised? When high-fashion imagery is saying, “look, this is perfection, and women with such looks are making hundreds of thousands if not millions and are the envy of others and on top of the desirability rankings,” will all girls and young women be easily convinced to ignore fashion imagery? What has been lacking heretofore has been nailing the culprit in educational programs, i.e., the gay factor, and setting up a comparable standard of “perfection” that cannot be achieved via negative health behaviors, i.e., a feminine beauty standard. Whereas this site does a decent job of educating the public about the gay factor, there is no mainstream outlet for feminine beauty appreciation yet, but I will be working toward it, and then we shall see whether the frequency of medically unnecessary dieting on the part of girls and women remains the same.

well, it appears that your agenda is driven by an odd combination of feminist "real beauty" BS, and religious anti-gay lunacy. you have the mind of a child.

some people are skinny, some are fat. some people are faggots, others are not. no big deal. nothing to worry about, unless you have some problems of your own and cannot make your own decisions.

good luck with your bullshit agenda.

Dave: If you believe that this site is about ‘feminist “real beauty,”’ then it is obvious that you have little understanding of what feminism is about. “Religious anti-gay lunacy”? What religious arguments have you encountered here? What is anti-gay within this site? The implication of the gay factor, as mentioned above, is well-supported by evidence, which you have been unable to refute. You are the person displaying lunacy, judging by your comment, “some people are skinny, some are big deal. nothing to worry about, unless you have some problems of your own and cannot make your own decisions.” Of course some people are skinny and some fat. What does it have to do with our discussion?

Click here to post a new comment