I’m interested in the juxtaposition of this with the reaction to a recent photo in Glamour:
[Warning: possibly NSFW; it appears to be a nude photo (she's actually wearing underwear), but carefully posed so that nothing is really showing. Definitely on the sexy side though.]

http://www.glamour.com/health-fitness/blogs/vitamin-g/2009/08/on-the-cl-the-picture-you-cant.html

We’re so messed up about body image in this country.

My point: This is a non-story. Making it appear as if she was fired for the flap over the recent story is Fark material.

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2009/10/ralph-lauren-hits-keep-on-coming.html

I lazily extrapolated/morphed a mental illness into it’s logical physical conclusion.

That was commented five hours ago.

http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/filippahamilton/filippa_hamilton_1.jpg

http://www.blogherbaldiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/ralph-lauren.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippa_Palmstierna_Hamilton

That’s equal to April ago in internet meme time.

Regardless of whether we have total knowledge of Lauren’s contractual or legal obligations to this particular model, as consumers we have we have every right to demonstrate dislike, or disdain, for the company’s ad campaigns and practices.

Hopefully the message that the majority of women would appreciate a fashion industry that personifies less absurd notions of beauty will get translated.

The most effective method: company revenues.

The fashion industry is guilty of focusing on a very narrow subset of body types to the exclusion of everybody else. That doesn’t mean that there is something inherently wrong with the skinny models, it means that the magazines should try broadening their view to include more shapes and sizes.

The fact that that is what RL wants is pretty crazy, but that’s a separate issue, isn’t it? The industry has collectively decided that clothes look best on people of a certain body type – very tall, and very thin. Whether they’re right or wrong is entirely subjective. If they had a wider range of models, I guess it would be easier to guess what the clothes would actually look like on the rest of us, but I suppose that’s not what they want, any more than a fast food commercial shows average examples of their sad products, rather than carefully crafted ones.

As for whether they have a MORAL obligation to combat “impossible standards,” maybe they do. But I don’t know – do many people actually find them to be the ideal? They aren’t supposed to be sex objects, they’re supposed to be attractive clothes hangers.

5′ 10″ and 125 lb is a little underweight. So what? For a model, underweight is normal, just in case no one has ever noticed.

When society as a whole or some concerned subset sees this, there are a couple choices.

Puritans from purify wanted to reform the Church of England.

The Reformation decided to break loose from the Catholic Church and create their own institution.

The question is: Is the whole institution so corrupt and nasty and anti-truth that purifying it is out of the question?

I’d say the Fashion Industry meets that standard.

So, its time for a replacement. Give it a name, a manifesto, and a viewpoint, and then promote it.

“Do you want to be a Stick or do you want Style?”
“Is it about the Clothes, or about You?”
Then show a contrast and comparison between a po-faced anorexic model, and a luscious lady in a gown made for her that makes you look at the woman and not the clothes.

The previous commenter who noted how adding X inches to a dress designed for a stick doesn’t really help normal woman should be a key part of the Style Design Movement.

And cause I’m a guy…another key part is to make the dresses and such be aimed to be attractive to guys.

Run an add with a tired looking RL, and a vital and handsome football player, and the question…”Which guy do you want to ask you to dance?”

Tennwriter

Whatever. this is a company that suggests $90 to retailers as the price for a white t- shirt with “ralph Lauren” on it. That alone show the contempt they have for the average person.

http://the-morrighan.blogspot.com/2009/10/not-that-i-buy-his-clothing.html

this is just un effing believable. really, it is

I’m taking you with a grain of salt until you do your own.

Isn’t it possible RL had some other reason to terminate her that had nothing to do with her size?

Maybe like a giant exercise in CYA (pre-emptive action) initiated after they got caught monstrously disfiguring her image (which could affect her career and which RL might be liable for if it such extreme retouching was outside her contract)?

We wouldn’t be mad at a record company for firing a singer who couldn’t sing well or at an auto repair shop for firing a mechanic who couldn’t fix cars well. It shouldn’t be any different for the fashion industry. We shouldn’t let our feelings about weight issues get in the way of defending a business’s right to hire and fire people who don’t meet their standards.

I agree that the model’s weight doesn’t sound fat at all in comparison with average, even thin, women. She’s a lot thinner than I am. But she’s a model. The bar is set higher. Being average or even a little above average doesn’t really qualify you to do things at a professional level, especially at the level required to work for a top-tier company. It seems Ralph Lauren has an extremely hard weight standard to achieve to some average sized women, but in the fashion industry, especially at the highest levels like Ralph Lauren, being very thin just a part of the job.

Also, I don’t know about the women’s wear, but in their men’s wear lines, they offer a wide range of big and tall sizes. I buy lots of Ralph Lauren for my husband and one of the reasons is that he’s a very large man and needs sizes that are unavailabe or hard to find in many other brands. While their ad campaigns may feature super thin models, their expectations of real-world people’s bodies are pretty inclusive, moreso than lots of other premium brands.