Size 10 Models and Mannequins
Moving swiftly on, the final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-07688, in the name of Dennis Robertson, on action over size 10 models and mannequins. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament considers that low self-esteem and eating disorders can be encouraged by the reinforcement of an unrealistic ideal that it considers is being promoted by fashion retailers that use size 10 models and mannequins; believes that the dress size of the average British woman has grown from 12 to 16 in a decade, while stores continue to display the latest fashions on size 10 mannequins; acknowledges calls for work to be done across the country, including in Aberdeenshire and in rural areas, to ensure that unhealthy lifestyles, which can lead to eating disorders, are not promoted by fashion retailers, and notes the lead being taken by Debenhams in introducing size 16 mannequins in its Oxford Street store.
17:04
I am pleased to bring this debate to the chamber this evening. I welcome to the public gallery members of the public who have an interest in the debate, and I welcome those who are following the debate online.
It is fitting that this debate comes soon after Jackie Baillie’s debate last week on no more page 3. I mention that because it, too, was about body image. Sarah Boyack made a pertinent contribution to that debate. She mentioned body image and its impact on even our youngest people, and I think that she mentioned clothes that were fashioned for three-year-olds.
Mannequins in our high street shops do not reflect the people in our streets. They do not reflect the reality of the shapes and sizes of people in our society. They are there to extenuate the fashion that is draped over them. They are often size 10 or below, they often have extenuated limbs, and they tend to be on the slightly tall side.
I welcome the steps that Debenhams has taken. In September, Jo Swinson MP said that we should axe size 10 mannequins from all our high street stores because they do not reflect the people and the shapes and sizes that we come in. Debenhams has taken that seriously. It has decided to use mannequins up to size 16—it still has sizes 10, 12 and 14. It also reflects people of an older age group, people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. That is to be welcomed, but it is happening only in the Debenhams store in Oxford Street in London. If Debenhams really wants to make the impact that I hope it wants to make, it needs to roll that out into all its stores in the United Kingdom, and the retail industry needs to look at what it is doing and why it is doing it.
Members know that I have personal experience of the impact of the image that is portrayed in the fashion industry. I learned only today that Edinburgh college of art, which is now part of the University of Edinburgh, has taken a stance against the so-called size zero, thin or skinny—whatever the term may be—in portraying fashion. It has decided to embrace people’s different shapes and sizes. All the students who take the college’s fashion degree now look at society as a whole and embrace that image.
The impact is global; it is not just here in the UK. When I was doing the research for the debate, I came across an interesting fact. Israel has introduced legislation that says that models cannot walk on the catwalk unless their body mass index is 18.5 or over. I am not calling for legislation; I am calling for a sense of reality. If we are going to have mannequins in our high street shops that illustrate the fashion that is out there, they need to be life size, and they need to reflect the sizes and shapes of people in our communities.
The fashion industry is taking that seriously. Led by the editor of Vogue Italia, 19 other editors of the Vogue magazines globally have a health pact. They have decided that it is irresponsible of them to have the emaciated models who have been in their magazines for years. They, too, look at the BMI of models whom the magazines photograph and who portray the fashion industry.
If we are to make an impact to assist people who have low self-image about their shape and body size, it is imperative that the industry takes a lead on that. The industry can be part of a solution, not part of a problem. It can listen to the calls from me in the chamber this evening and from the wider community, and I believe that it is listening. People are no longer satisfied to see glorified images in high street shop windows that do not bear any resemblance at all to people’s shapes and sizes.
In conclusion, mannequins or photographs in fashion magazines do not cause eating disorders but they exacerbate the condition in people who are predisposed to or have an eating disorder. They hinder those people who are on the pathway to recovery by putting up barriers and obstacles. I urge the retail industry to get real and show us images that reflect the shape and size of people in the communities in which we live.
17:10
I congratulate Dennis Robertson on securing debating time for this issue and on the power of his contribution.
We know that hundreds of people seek assistance every year from the national health service for eating disorders, and we also know that they are predominantly but not exclusively women. That said, we do not actually know how many people are suffering in silence without any support.
The size 10 model or mannequin is not the sole reason for eating disorders—Dennis Robertson said that very well—but it has an impact by playing into the gender stereotype of the so-called perfect woman. The dimensions of that perfect woman bear little resemblance to reality, and I will return to that issue later.
There is an impact. The Royal College of Psychiatrists published a report on eating disorders and media influence in 2010. It found that images of the perfect, airbrushed, pre-teen body type as something that is attainable and the marginalisation of eating disorders are the norm in the media. There was clear evidence of the propagation of unattainable body ideals. Size 10 mannequins and models are the fashion industry’s expression of that.
However, it has to be said that mannequins were not always that skinny. They have lost weight over the years. Let us not forget that the mannequins of the 1950s and 1960s all portrayed a far more curvy female form than they do today, such as that of Marilyn Monroe. Nowadays, even supermodels are considered to be insufficiently skinny. Look at what happened to supermodel Christy Turlington—the mannequin that was based on her body size was slimmed down, which is entirely ridiculous given how slim she is already.
With due respect to our supermodels, none of them resembles the real women whom we see on our high streets, in our communities or, dare I say it, in this chamber. I hope that retailers are beginning to understand that. I join in the chorus of congratulations to Debenhams on using size 16 mannequins, starting with its shop in Oxford Street. Like Dennis Robertson, I hope that that will spread nationwide. We know that Marks and Spencer and TK Maxx have already taken steps to promote body confidence through marketing, and that is great.
There is a clear business case for using mannequins and models that are over size 10. There is interesting research out there, but the results are not really surprising when we think about them. That research, from the University of Cambridge, suggests that—surprise, surprise—women are more likely to purchase clothing if they see models who are the same size as themselves. That seems to be common sense, but the data are staggering. Women’s purchasing intentions increased by 200 per cent—and believe me, we are ready to shop at the drop of a hat anyway—for same-size models, and dropped by 64 per cent when the models were just too skinny. I described it as the imagine-yourself-in-that-outfit effect. Same-size models make business sense for retailers.
I am told that the average dress size in the United Kingdom is a 16, but many mannequins are a size 6 not a size 10, and I do not even begin to understand what size zero is all about.
I will finish with some information about the Barbie doll, which I thought was fascinating. Every second that passes, two Barbie dolls are sold worldwide. The target market is young girls aged from three to 12. It is a multibillion pound industry each year. Barbie is 5 foot 9 inches tall, she has an 18 inch waist and her ideal weight is 110 pounds. Slumber party Barbie, introduced in 1965, comes with the bathroom scale permanently set at 110 pounds and a book entitled “How to lose weight”, with directions inside simply stating, “Don’t eat.”
Let us not make the same mistake with the next generation of women; let us stop objectifying them and understand that we all come in different shapes and sizes.
17:15
I congratulate Dennis Robertson on securing the debate.
Decades ago someone said that a woman cannot
“be too rich or too thin.”
That was Wallis Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor. Not so long ago, someone said:
“Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.”
That was Kate Moss, super model. The slogan was put on t-shirts and ads until it was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority.
More recently, even the Duchess of Cambridge was complimented on how slim she had got so soon after the birth of her child. The same media had previously directed abuse at the Duchess of York, who happened at one time to be rather voluptuous, because she was not slim enough.
The model, Sophie Dahl, had a curvaceous plus-size figure, but the change in having such a model created a hoo-hah. To conform, she slimmed down to a size 10, if not a size 8. The voluptuous Nigella Lawson, who licks her fingers when she is making chocolate cake, has lost two stones. Very rarely do we see a female television presenter who is not very slim, if not thin—and I am told that television puts half a stone on a person.
I watch Downton Abbey. The women actors on that programme are almost androgynous in build—every single one of them. Practically every image that young girls see—whether on advertisements, on television, in plays or in the media—implies that to be slim is to be good is to be successful.
Members should not take only my word, as someone who is a media watcher. By the way, I may not be Marilyn Monroe, but I relate to that era—bring it back I say. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, in its 2010 report on eating disorders and the influence of the media, talked in relation to visual imagery about
“The promotion of the thin body ideal. Pre-teen or underweight models are used as the predominant image with a lack of diversity in body size, shape, age and ethnicity ... The portrayal of physical perfection as attainable ... and the norm through extensive use of digital enhancement or airbrushing.”
Jackie Baillie referred to that. It said:
“There is a lack of reality-based imagery.”
Magazine content is exactly the same. Body critical articles, particularly those targeting celebrities for having eating disorders or having put on weight, show photographs of them in bikinis, with a bit of a tummy, even after they have just had a child. Such critiques force women to take a certain view of themselves and underrate their other qualities.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists in its 2010 report recommends the following:
“Use of role models throughout the mass media that cover a diversity of weight, shape, age, disability and ethnicity.
Cessation of the use of underweight models.
Raising awareness of use and extent of digital manipulation of images through use of a kite mark.”
That is very important, because young girls look at magazines and think that people really look like that—well, they do not.
The problem perhaps starts with seeing slimness or the cult of thinness as a goal or an achievement. We are all guilty of doing that. We congratulate someone on losing weight—we do that in here. How many MSPs would admit to having been on a diet or have said that they are on a diet, should be on a diet, have come off a diet or have failed on a diet?
People do not always diet for health reasons. In fact, it is rarely for such reasons; rather, it is to do with vanity, self-esteem and receiving the praise that follows from our colleagues. However, taken to extremes, as Dennis Robertson rightly mentioned, dieting has disastrous consequences—it exacerbates an emotional and mental predilection to take it even further than the rest of us.
I commend Dennis Robertson for bringing the debate and I commend Debenhams for using size 16 mannequins—though why it stopped at size 16 I do not know, as there are lots of women out there who are more than a size 16. However, I offer one word of caution. We have been here before with the shops and with models, so let us watch that there is not a relapse on the promise and that the change is not just for the time being. Rather like Sophie Dahl, we could then be back on that diet.
17:20
I, too, thank Dennis Robertson for lodging the motion for this evening’s debate. The background to the debate is well known, and we all know Dennis Robertson’s personal reasons for taking such a keen interest in the subject.
Eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa are often exacerbated by the presence in culture, on the television and in the printed media of fashion models who are incredibly tall and thin. Sadly, many young girls feel the need to aspire to this level of so-called beauty and go to extreme lengths to look like Kate Moss or, indeed, the current top supermodel Cara Delavingne.
Body confidence is a very challenging aspect of modern living that has to be taken seriously, so I pay tribute to the Westminster Government for its campaign to raise awareness of the issue. Launched three years ago, the campaign’s primary theme is to tackle the causes of negative body image and to give people the tools to challenge the images that they see that can contribute to low personal self-esteem.
The progress report that was published in May this year is a very constructive document—if members have not read it, I encourage them to do so. As a starting point, the report contains some startling statistics, such as that one quarter of children aged 10 to 15 are unhappy about their appearance and 50 per cent of women feel under pressure to look good at all times. The Government has been working in a number of areas to address those issues through an advisory group, with members drawn from across industry and the third sector, to promote positive and diverse representations of appearance in the media.
The Government has also been working with All Walks Beyond the Catwalk, which is a fantastic campaign group that challenges the fashion industry’s dependence on one body ideal. Constructive work between that group and Edinburgh college of art has led to the diversity network, which promotes positive attitudes to body diversity within fashion education and aims to inspire the next generation of graduates and designers to create fashion for a wider range of body shapes and sizes.
The current concept in the fashion world that tall and slim equals beautiful certainly needs to be challenged, and I am glad that that is now beginning to happen. Just as we are all individuals with the right to respect and choice in how we live our lives, so, too, we are all different in size, shape, character and colour. No one should portray us as requiring to fit into certain measurements in order to be considered attractive.
Indeed, if we look at how size and shape have changed through history, it is evident that tall and thin was not always regarded as beautiful. Successive generations tend to be bigger than their predecessors. For example, I am much taller and broader than my mother was, age for age, whereas I am already shorter than my 13-year-old grandson. I do not think that the fashion world has really acknowledged that change, as it continues to design clothes that look good on tall, thin people but not on those who are smaller or more curvaceous. Personally, I find it increasingly difficult to shop on the high street, because much fashion suits only those who are young, slim and trendy, whereas in the real world we have an increasing population of still active older people who want to look smartly and attractively dressed.
I live in hope that by using models and mannequins that are representative of modern-day society, while accepting nonetheless that there are too many people in the western world who are significantly overweight, we might get a fashion world that caters for all shapes and sizes and which allows people to feel comfortable in their own skin and makes them less likely to copy the images that we currently see on the catwalks of high fashion.
The recent press coverage of the Debenhams mannequins has contributed considerably to the debate, and I note that Debenhams is not the only outlet that is moving away from what could be described as the body perfect mannequin; Marks and Spencer and TK Maxx have followed suit. Even from a purely commercial point of view, recent evidence has found that women are more likely to purchase clothing if they see it on a shop model the same size as them.
I am also pleased to see that, in its advertising, Debenhams has also used models who reflect the reality of society, including women over 40, an amputee and a size 18 model. However, there is still scope for mannequins to be more representative of what the human form actually looks like, and I look forward to that happening.
Once again, I thank Dennis Robertson for bringing this serious issue before us this evening.
17:24
I congratulate my friend and colleague Dennis Robertson on securing the debate and on bringing this important issue to the chamber. Dennis has been an extremely strong campaigner on the issue and related topics since he entered the Parliament and it is fantastic that he is again bringing the issue to the Parliament’s attention.
I am interested in the comments on media perception. In doing a bit of googling ahead of the debate, I ended up on the Daily Mail website, looking at an article that was trying to make out that size 16 models are not different from the norm. Unfortunately, the sidebar contained links to other articles saying things such as, “Wow! Look at Helena Christensen’s fantastic bikini body,” or, “Look at the weight that Kim Kardashian has lost since she had her baby.” In essence, that completely and utterly nullified the message of the article. We should bear it in mind that the media has an important role in relation to its enforcement of body stereotypes.
I want to talk about the way in which mannequins, body size and body perception issues affect men. The charity Beat has argued that male eating disorders in the fashion industry are increasing because of a shift in emphasis from muscular men to slender and skinny men. Beat says that it has seen a rise in the number of men with eating disorders and it is trying to draw attention to that.
I was interested in Jackie Baillie’s remarks on the evolution of the mannequin. The company Rootstein has attracted controversy lately with its new mannequin, homme nouveau, which sports a 35-inch chest and a 27-inch waist. In 1967, the Rootstein classic mannequin had a 42-inch chest and 33-inch waist; in 1983, the mannequin that was referred to as the muscleman had a 41-inch chest and a 31-inch waist; and, in 1994, the mannequin that was known as the swimmer had a 38-inch chest and a 28-inch waist. Now, the company has gone to a 35-inch chest and a 27-inch waist.
It is depressing that such companies do not see the impact that those changes have on society. From my perspective, when I started to put on weight towards the end of my teens, I stopped wearing jeans because I had the perception that jeans were what skinny people wore and that they would not suit somebody who had put on a lot of weight. There is that perception out there.
Jackie Baillie also made an interesting point about Barbie. Likewise, a body perception is passed across through the dimensions of male action figures. “Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen through Action Toys”, an article by professors at Harvard University medical school, McLean Hospital and the University of Massachusetts Boston, reviewed physiques of male action toys such as GI Joe, or Han Solo and Luke Skywalker from “Star Wars”. The review found that the figures have become more muscular over time, with many contemporary figures far exceeding the muscularity of even the largest human bodybuilders. Those toys can lead to perceptions.
Beat makes the point that, although images and mannequins alone do not cause eating disorders, they reinforce perceptions and stereotypes. An individual’s negative perception is reinforced if their body image is not reflected in the mainstream media or in the supermarkets that they shop in. In tackling the issue, it is important that we do not say that by having size 16 mannequins we will prevent people from developing eating disorders—the logic is not as simple as that. However, if we move to a situation in which people see their size represented in the media and on the high street, that will remove some of the negative perception and the isolation that those who have an eating disorder can feel.
I will finish with a quotation from one of the case studies on the Beat website. One person says:
“I just wish that being a size 14 was considered as beautiful as a size 8.”
The message that we should send out is that, regardless of your size, you are beautiful.
17:29
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this members’ business debate. I congratulate Dennis Robertson on bringing the debate to the chamber and on all the passionate campaigning that he has done to raise awareness of body image issues and eating disorders.
It is encouraging that some of our larger department stores—particularly flagship stores in high-profile city centres—are starting to challenge the unvarying use of size 10 mannequins. I hope that that will set a precedent that others will follow. There is nothing wrong with size 10 mannequins in the presence of other sizes, but sizes 10 to 16 are all considered healthy for different body types. The issue is that mannequins are not representative of that fact.
Various studies have examined the link between low self-esteem, eating disorders and the reinforcement of an unrealistic physical ideal through media and advertising. The Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology carries a range of articles, but one entitled “Does Size Matter? The impact of model’s body size on women’s body-focused anxiety and advertising effectiveness” is particularly pertinent to the motion. Emma Halliwell and Helga Dittmar of the University of Sussex write:
“An increasing number of studies shows that exposure to thin ideal bodies in the media has negative effects on young women’s body images, at least in the short-term.”
The findings of their research were significant. In a study analysing the content of three different types of advertisement, they measured how effective campaigns were in promoting products and examined the psychological impact on body anxiety. They concluded that, as they expected:
“exposure to thin models resulted in greater body-focused anxiety among women who internalize the thin ideal than exposure to average-size models or no models. Yet, advertisements were equally effective, regardless of the model’s size.”
If that is indeed the case, there is cause to push for the adoption of models who will challenge the industry’s perception of what sells.
There has been a long-term trend toward very thin living models and mannequins. That results in culturally embedded preconceptions of attractiveness and acts against the reality for most people. The unrelenting use of thin models serves a broader agenda that feeds a multimillion pound industry, but the psychological wellbeing of thousands of people—old and young alike—is detrimentally impacted if the education and reinforcement of positive alternatives is non-existent. The UK Government held a body image summit in June 2000 to discuss the need for policies regarding such media images, and the British Medical Association concluded:
“the media play a significant role in the aetiology of eating disorders”.
It is essential to reach people at an early stage in school and ensure that all young people have support in establishing their own positive sense of self and being healthy in body and mind. The majority of eating disorders evolve in the teens and early 20s but, increasingly, negative self-image is becoming apparent in children, not teenagers. We simply cannot dismiss such a deeply ingrained and damaging psychological disorder as a teenage fad or some form of attention-seeking behaviour.
Debenhams has set a precedent in placing size 16 models beside the standard size 10. It has also recently agreed to discontinue the use of airbrushed images and urged others in the industry to follow suit. We have only to dip into news coverage of the issue to see that the move has been accepted with immense positive reactions across the board, from industry commentators to activists and the broader public.
The ethical imperative that the emerging research and figures place on retail groups means that the argument for the status quo is rapidly becoming unsustainable. Profit margins cannot take precedence over the mental health of future generations and all in the advertising industry must recognise that they and the customer both stand to benefit from the exchange. They will continue to sell the same amount of clothing. They will continue to be able to use attractive people to promote their products. However, those models will reflect the beautiful diversity of the citizens of this country who, rather than feeling like uncomfortable visitors in stores, will see their own images reflected back in the clothes that they desire. What an empowering step that will be towards finally accepting the bodies that we have and celebrating differences rather than an abstract and culturally embedded physical ideal.
I congratulate Dennis Robertson and commend his remarkable strength of character in continuing to fight for such a worthy cause.
17:34
I, too, join the chorus of congratulations to Dennis Robertson on raising the issue. I also congratulate him on the tremendous contribution that, in his short time in the Parliament, he has made to bringing these important issues to our attention.
Every speech tonight has been excellent. The debate shows the Parliament in its best light. If some of the members’ business debates were repeated during the day, people might see the Parliament in a better light.
This is a complex and contentious issue and everyone should play their part in tackling the unhelpful and unrealistic ideals that can lead to unhealthy lifestyles. Debenhams has taken the lead in recognising that, and the store’s mannequins have been referred to by nearly every member. Dennis Robertson has suggested that Debenhams will roll them out across the country. I hope that that happens and that others in the industry repeat its example.
I want to quote fairly extensively from an organisation called Beat, which has been set up to beat eating disorders. These quotations are extremely relevant to our discussion about the relationship between eating disorders and marketing and image in the modern world. Beat says:
“Body image is a topic that continually seems to attract attention. A report published by the All Party Parliamentary Group ... on Body Image revealed that over half the UK public suffer from negative body image which can to leave to health and relationship problems, low self esteem and hinder participation at school and progression at work.”
It says:
“The causes of eating disorders are complex”—
which we all know—
“and not yet fully determined but include genetic, psychological, environmental, social and biological influences. Poor body image and low self esteem are key factors in the development of eating disorders and social and cultural pressures are strong in this area.”
The image presented by modern advertising through mannequins, press adverts and TV adverts all play a part in that.
Beat goes on to say:
“A preoccupation with weight and shape is one of the key features of current popular culture. And these cultural ideals are not solely relevant to women—boys and men also feel these pressures but for them they relate to the ‘need’ to be muscular, toned and athletic.”
In the list of influences, the cabinet secretary has not mentioned the commercial advantage to companies of all the dieting fads, medicines and pills out there. It is in the interests of those companies to keep the issue on the boil, as it were, so that people will continue to purchase those products—and fail—because there is a lot of money to be made from them. Perhaps the cabinet secretary should also mention that influence.
I agree entirely with what Christine Grahame said.
Beat draws attention to a study carried out in Fiji on the influence of the media on body image
“before and after the wide exposure to television. The study found that key indicators of disordered eating were significantly more prevalent following exposure. Narrative data revealed participants interest in weight loss was a means of modelling themselves on television characters.”
The study, which was carried out by Professor Anne Becker about eight years ago, was called “Eating behaviours and attitudes following prolonged exposure to television among ethnic Fijian adolescent girls” and was published in The British Journal of Psychiatry.
Another study, by Dr Aric Sigman, in The Biologist in October 2010,
“showed that there is a strong link between eating disorders and visual media. Repeated exposure to images of thin women alters brain function and increases the propensity to develop eating disorders.”
The 19 editors of Vogue magazines around the world have recently launched a welcome health initiative
“to reflect their commitment to the health of the models who appear on the pages and the wellbeing of their readers.”
That is an important initiative, because Vogue is a world leader in fashion media. It is a major statement, which I hope the rest of the industry heeds.
The reason for my extensive quotes is that we now have scientific research to prove the links between eating disorders and what goes on in the media and television and with mannequins in shop windows. The industry can no longer be in denial about that link. It is incumbent on all of us to do everything that we can to get the industry more widely to recognise that link and the damage that it is doing by promoting an image of thinness, and to change its practice.
As Jackie Baillie pointed out very articulately, the irony of the situation is that, if the industry does that, it will be good for business because it will clearly reflect the needs and aspirations of the wider population in our society.
The cabinet secretary’s point is well made about it being good for business. However, will it not also be good for the health of individuals and our communities, which is what we are striving to achieve? It is not about low body weights, although we are striving to move away from obesity as well; we are looking for healthy lifestyles and healthy people. That is really what we should be aiming for.
Absolutely. Dennis Robertson makes the point very well indeed. The point that I am making, which I think Jackie Baillie was making, reinforces Dennis Robertson’s point. Promoting health can be good business as well. There is no conflict between promoting good health outcomes and being able to run a successful fashion business in all its different guises.
Dennis Robertson has brought this issue to our attention in a way that has not been done before. By highlighting the example of mannequins, he has served this cause very well indeed. The Parliament has, I hope, responded accordingly.
We should all commit ourselves to doing whatever we can to change the situation for the health of young women in our society in particular. I hope that we will see much less damage done to their health in future, particularly through eating disorders. As Dennis Robertson said, the size of mannequins—or indeed TV exposure—is not the cause of eating disorders, but it exacerbates the situation for young women in particular who are predisposed to trying to look like what they perceive to be the proper image of a modern young lady.
Meeting closed at 17:42.