Bart Och - Travel Journalist

Victoria’s Secret quite recently became succumbed to ‘woke culture’ so that things would be getting a lot better for their brand. They will no longer be employing the disgustingly attractive supermodels known as Victoria’s Secret Angels because their body types are undesirable and a terrible influence. Instead, they hired a new team of representatives known not for their proportions but their achievements … because why should modelling be done by professional models?

Normally, woke people are absolutely perfect, which helps their cause in being abrasively critical of everyone while victimising themselves. Victoria’s Secret new team is inclusive of plus-size body types because body-shaming is not okay under any circumstances … unless it is towards someone whose body you admire in which case body-shaming them is your social responsibility so that you can feel better about yourself.

Their new lead rep is an activist soccer player and member of the gay community, Megan Rapinoe. As a company, they are listening to her for some reason. Rapinoe believes that Victoria’s Secret old approach was patriarchal and sexist, saying the brand viewed what was sexy through a male’s lens and what men desire. Because Rapino is good at soccer, they have learnt that using a ‘male’s lens’ is not a wise thing to do when your customer base is predominantly heterosexual women who are buying lingerie to be more desirable … to men. Rapinoe went on to say that the message Victoria’s Secret had been sending was really harmful – because sending a message that it is okay for women to want to attract men is harmful because that creates happiness for all involved.

Even now, having a gay woman as a spokesperson is a small step in the right direction, it just isn’t far enough and is still ultimately a harmful message. Suggesting you have to be a woman to wear women’s lingerie is a harmful message because it discriminates against women who aren’t … women. And with lingerie suggesting you have to be attractive to someone in order for them to be attracted to you has no biological basis and is scientifically inaccurate because of … racism. And only using humans to model women’s lingerie is rooted in specism and is evidence of centuries worth of patriarchy, which was originated by humans. So admittedly, they have much room for improvement.

Now, some bigots may ask, “Well, Repinoe, if you were so against the way Victoria’s Secret was and didn’t want to wear their stuff, why wouldn’t you just, you know, not wear it?” What these bigots don’t know is that kind of personal choice is rooted in self-responsibility and, therefore, just isn’t consistent with the company’s woke ethos of trying to help society … by destroying society. And it is time we wake up and realise we are living in a time when everybody is just as beautiful as everyone else. Except if you are less beautiful, that makes you more beautiful because real beauty is kind of ugly and oppressive … because we are all equally beautiful. And suggesting you are not allowed to be attracted to someone who you are not attracted to is an old patriarchal pattern that perpetuates racism, rape culture … and food poisoning.

Victoria’s Secret, racking up their virtue, sets a fantastic example for young people. Case in point, they even hired a young person (a child to be exact) to help them sell sexy lingerie – 17-year old Eileen Gu. But she is Asian, so you don’t notice the paedophilia hiding under the diversity. And while the company got woke and hired a new team of alternative women, they had fired their previous Angels, including Jasmine Tokes and Leomie Anderson, who are both black. As Megan Rapinoe takes her rightful place advising them and being one of their models, what do we do with the now unemployed supermodels? Well, logically speaking, they should probably take the place of Megan and the other soccer players on the women’s national team … because why should sports be played by athletes? It is just oppressive to non-athletes. Sports should be played by models, and maybe we could even have the models advise the soccer committee about what rule changes it should make because that would also make a lot of sense.

Supporting diversity by slaying diversity, in all truthfulness, makes no sense. Disallowing people to be who they are or choose to be in a manner that doesn’t hurt anyone or anything other than someone else’s fragile ego, or because it is somehow ruining their relationship or career, isn’t anyone’s social responsibility in a selfish battle for equality. It is nothing but a projection of their own insecurities on others and evidence of personal issues. Indeed, your social responsibility is to fight oppression, not to oppress. And your responsibility, too, is to allow others to be – not anything or anyone but themselves.

There seems to be a massive lack of understanding in today’s society driven not by those who celebrate their lives without offending others but those who feel offended by others’ sole existence and right to be happy in their own skins. Typically, it would be healthy to encourage others to feel empowered and choose for themselves their role and function … unless they are beautiful. Then it becomes a problem because the rank and file of today’s society are made up of people who don’t want to be praised for their looks but their achievements – because they don’t feel beautiful enough or because they don’t make an effort to look their best. Those people can’t allow beautiful people to exist and walk amongst “mortals”, so they petition, nag, whine, protest, and agitate until they succeed in having their way. They cover their anxiety and self-doubt with seemingly legitimate reasoning: “all people are people, not props for some theatrical bullshit.” But does the fact that we are people mean we should not be subjected to preferences?

And isn’t comparing and evaluating your self-worth based on someone else’s appearance an illusive act of objectification in itself that doesn’t serve anyone any good? Isn’t there more to those Angels than adequate (for the brand) proportions? How is firing them from their jobs and replacing them with ostensibly “less beautiful” or rather “typical-looking” and therefore “more relatable” models going to stop the act of objectification? Because, like with all offences, the act of objectification that makes a person uncomfortable should be mandated on those who bolster the deed and not on its victims. And, whether we agree with it or not, some women and men alike like to be appreciated, admired, or even cat-called; some don’t. Luckily, it is often relatively easy to tell who does and doesn’t enjoy the “extra attention”.

There is no denying that unrealistic, toxic beauty standards have somewhat adverse effects on our society, especially young, impressionable people. But ‘standard’ by definition is just an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations. Standards change constantly and are, well, set by people, and people are by nature perfectionists. Perfection is unattainable, though, and, therefore, those standards are mostly unrealistic. As we continue to evaluate our worth based on how we look compared to professional models who often put a lot of work, time, and effort – and who make a lot of sacrifices along the way – to look the way they do, we will continue to feel inadequate, never beautiful enough, not worthy enough, etc. The time you spend on social media comparing and putting yourself down over the people you see as more attractive than yourself is the time you could use to do things that make you feel good. Stay less on Instagram and more in the gym. Read, cook, meditate, travel … Do whatever makes you happy! Sometimes, it doesn’t mean doing more but doing less – less of what makes you jealous, angry, sad, and upset. If you know you have a peanut allergy, why would you eat peanuts? If you know it will make you feel bad gazing all day at pictures of beautiful people, why would you?

As they say, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” And that is precisely the message we need to propagate – that it is okay to look ordinary, average … normal – you can’t be everyone’s cup of tea, you simply can’t be physically appealing to everyone on Earth because we are all different. We are not all equally beautiful, and we all have varying preferences. That is diversity. And the acceptance of those differences, that is growth, that is what it means to be ‘woke’. And though it is important to cherish, care for, and work on what has been given to you, it is never okay to put others down so that you can feel better about yourself. Instead, introspect, embrace your flaws, work on yourself both outside and within, learn to love yourself and others, for we are not just a body but also mind and soul.

On the one hand, Victoria’s Secret is attempting to be more inclusive, more alluring to the wider audience; on the other, it is perpetuating the odd, detrimental notion and idea that professional models have nothing much to offer but a pretty face, that their achievements are insignificant, that they can’t speak for themselves and should be taken care of because they can’t take care of themselves … that the Angels were no more but hollow mannequins. It is also suggesting that it is somehow not okay to be tall and skinny anymore, but it is okay to be anything else by creating an illusion that beauty is a universal law granted to everyone irrespective of their habits and choices they make and not something that requires an equal amount of work, time, and effort as it may as well do to play soccer.

[published by DEFUZE]

Leave a reply