Critics of the December-January French Vogue photo spread featuring little girls as mini women decorated in gaudy make up, swathed in luxurious adult women’s clothing, assembled on beds, fawning on animal skin rugs, pouting bright red moist lips under a banner ‘Cadeaux’ – little presents to be unwrapped – just don’t get it.
The 15-page colour shoot of little-girls-as-grown-up-women is just parody, an incisive cutting-edge commentary on the culture. And we’re all just too dumb to realise that because we’re overdosing on moral panics and thinking of the children (a mocking phrase applied to those of us advocating for children).
That’s according to Jenna Saunders, in her Jezebel piece yesterday titled ‘French Vogue’s Kiddie Spread is Misunderstood’. Saunders writes:
But it’s also obvious from the over-the-top styling and the overall lurid quality that this story is a parody and a critique of the fashion industry’s unhealthy interest in young girls, not an endorsement or a glamourization of it
When a stylist — Melanie Huynh — and a photographer — Sharif Hamza — somehow get it in their minds to viciously satirize an industry that so fetishizes youth that it pretends adolescents are preferable substitutes for grown women? And when a respected fashion magazine — Vogue Paris — has the balls to publish their horrifying Toddlers in Tiaras-on-speed work? When that happens, cue the outrage! Won’t someone think of the children…
But this spread is a not-so-subtle fuck you to our culture’s unhealthy obsession with youth (in general) and the fashion industry’s (in particular), and to the commodification of childhood that comes with both. Is this story “tasteful”? Hell no. Does it “sell” the clothes? Not really. Is it pleasant to look at? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t good for us to see.
I don’t accept that this is really a parody or irony or an f**k- you to the culture. It is the culture. Vogue is not critiquing or de-constructing, it is embedding sexualised and adultified notions of children into the culture, inviting the viewer to ‘read’ the images of little girls – in this case, Lea, Prune and Thylane – as mini-women, therefore as much older and more (sexually?) knowing, than they actually are.
Patty Huntington over at Frockwriter was first to publish the photos online, setting off a global frenzy of interest. She described “heavily made-up children draped seductively over chairs, daybeds and an animal skin rug, with their legs and décolletages bared, like child prostitutes in a brothel…”
Saunders is just speculating. She doesn’t quote anyone involved as saying that satire was the intention. No one from Vogue has said “It’s parody people, don’t you get it?” A bold, cutting edge editor would be prepared to go out and defend the shoot against critics, but that hasn’t happened (in fact editor-in-chief Carine Roitfeld resigned shortly after the photos went viral, which may of course be a coincidence).
Guest editor Tom Ford is on the front cover, standing behind model Daphne Groeneveld, aged 14 when the shot was taken. Is that meant to be ironic too?
I wonder if the irony will be lost on the kind of men who enjoy prepubescent girls groomed to look like adult women in high heels and with things in their mouths?
I agree with this comment on Huntington’s blog (in response to another commenter who couldn’t see a problem with the images):
You see nothing overtly sexual about a smoldering look through one’s upper eyelashes, about glossy wet pouted lips slightly parted, about bare legs tilted sideways on a disheveled bed, about a silky top plunging well below where the cleavage would be? If any of these looks, coupled with that clothing/makeup, were from a grown woman in a nightclub, the message would be pretty clear. You cannot just separate that kind of body language from the usual meaning just because the body performing it is a child. Yes kids play dressup. Innocent dressup is full of mismatched odds and ends, smeared makeup, plastic shoes, giggles and silliness. It is a pretend parody of the adult experience devoid of the adult understandings. Look into their eyes, THIS is not giggles and silliness. This is the inappropriate double whammy of insinuating adults are no good unless they look like a child, and children are no good unless they look like adults. It is pedophiliac style grooming of the reading public, so slowly and gently you don’t know when the line has been crossed….
Even if these images were created as a commentary on the fashion industry, a critique of the ‘getting older younger’ phenomenon in (or imposed on) children, the reality is they have still used children make their point. Labelling it artistic or clever, doesn’t make it okay. As writer and commentator Nina Funnell wrote to me:
So what is the standard here? Is it acceptable to dress children up in sexualised clobber, photograph them in a sexualised manner but only if the purpose is satirical? Do the children understand the satire that they are being used to create? How does the photo session impact on them? What precautions- if any- did the photographers, stylists and make-up artists put in place to protect the kids? Did they explain it was just ‘fun dress-ups’ for a day? And even if they did, what’s to stop a six year old from walking away with the
message that when they look older and dress in a more sexual manner they get more praise, attention and money compared to when they look like their every day self? If we are going to say that child exploitation/ sexualisation is inappropriate then we have to be a bit consistent in that. We can’t say it’s inappropriate if it’s being done to sell a product, but fine if it’s done for ‘artistic merit’ or ‘cultural commentary’ purposes.
Nice of Jezebel to go in to bat for French Vogue. But many of us aren’t buying it. Vogue is not outside the culture. It is the culture.
15 Responses
and where the hell are the parents? what are they thinking and acting on to exploit their children this way? they gave consent for their children to be used in this way and is there profit to be had for this … call it for what it is. Child abuse.
Thank you for writing this! It is almost beyond belief that Jezebel would take this preposterous stance…were it not for the fact that everything they write it intended to provoke. I have fallen for this tactic too many times.
And yet ,that doesn’t make it okay to propagate this kind of nonsense. That Jezebel writer is clueless. She knows about deconstruction but can’t or won’t accept what her own eyes see. Her take on this editorial, if it is even genuine and not just an easy way to garner outrage, is like those super-violent films whose directors insist they are a STATEMENT ABOUT violence, not ACTUALLY violent.
Wow, silly me, I didn’t pick up on the parody!
This reminds me of when people say that Eminem isn’t really a misogynist- his lyrics only sound misogynistic because he’s commenting on the way the world is, or making a statement, or pointing out that misogyny exists…or some rubbish like that.
Melinda,
Happy NewYear.
Looks like it’s going to be business as usual!
Regards
Michael
I don’t care what the point of the images is, like you I feel it starts to blur the lines of what is acceptable and unacceptable. The more we see of images like this then the more we start to become complacent and less likely to question. It is at this point where hope is lost. I would think these people if they were truly concerned would be protecting childhood, allowing children to remain there as long as possible and encouraging play and happiness where the innocence of the child is preserved. In my opinion this photoshoot does none of this. Most normal adults cringe at the idea of children as young as 4 being sent into coal mines a couple of hundred years ago, but to me this is just as horrifying and sad.
I don’t know – I think I’m with Jenna and Jezebel on this one. I agree that the images are a reflection of a culture that already exists, but they’re also an exaggeration of it: younger models (than you would normally see in Vogue), sexier poses (than you would usually see on young models), frankly bizarre copy (about how make-up should change as you age), and an overall vibe of what almost has to be satirical weirdness. It takes images that are usually taken for granted, and takes them to a level that rightly disturbs us. I’m not sure it’s the most effective political statement in the world, but it certainly has gotten people talking.
Don’t blame the parents blame our pornified culture and its brothers the sex industry, the male-donimated fashion industry, the neo-libertarians, all of whom are determined to exploit women and girls in the name of profit.
Why aren’t there any images of sexualised dehumanised boy children then? Is it because our male supremacist culture will not reduce males to women’s disposable sexualised commodities because males unlike females have certain rights. One of which is all males – boys and men are not dehumanised commodities. But hey it is fine to engage in child porn which in itself cannot be separated out from mens’ adult pornography. Then too pseudo feminist website Jezebel refuses to even attempt to apply common everyday feminist criticisms of this latest example of men’s hatred and men’s contempt for women and girls.
Jezebel is clearly too afraid of ‘upsetting the powerful men to dare to criticise this latest female offering for male sexual consumption.
I now await claims from male child rapists – ‘but look it was the images in that magazine Vogue which caused to believe it is my right to rape female children. Don’t blame me – I can’t help it if I’m offered sexualised images of girls? After all I’m just a man ruled by my hormones!’
I agree with Jennifer. I would also add that child sex offenders work in all walks of life and they have a political barrow to push. They routinely argue that they don’t abuse children they ” love them” , they ” give them what they want” ….(a mantra that is also common in adult sexual violence by the way) Many tens of thousands of children go missing around the globe yearly, many of them into organized sexual abuse. Many many hundreds of thousands of men make, sell and share child pornography. In this context, to push the limits of what mainstream culture will tolerate with adds such as this seems a political move, not parody.
I agree with Michael: Business as usual. Anything goes provided it captures (in this case adult) consumers’ attention.
So the sexualisation of children is now fine provided it’s a ‘parody’ and we’re all just too unsophisticated to ‘get it’?
Give me a break. Everyone at Vogue needs to make themselves aware of the now well-documented concern among experts in child health and welfare about the sexualisation of children (see for example http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx and http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/index.htm).
And if Vogue could make the use of adult women models to model adult women’s clothing in their fashion spreads rather than adolescents standard practice, that’d be better still.
Emma Rush
@Jennifer Drew
I replied to a comment of yours re: Kanye West’s new video, but this time i’m afraid you have gone too far. I was affected by mistakes that my mother made and reflected them onto women, and for a couple of years i can honestly say i disliked female kind. I can only imagine that something similar happened to you, that you have been hurt by a man and are reflecting that onto all men, and if that is the case then I am truly sorry.
There are so many points I could raise regarding your demonisation of men and men alone, but i just want to raise a couple of them as briefly as I can.
Firstly you seem to think that only men view pornography…that is misinformed at best! Here in the UK we were shocked by a story in the past couple of days where 4 people, 1 man and 3 women, were convicted of sexual abuse against children and pornography. (Is it a shock because in our society women are seen as more moral and pure I wonder? Not that I think it possible to make such a judgement!) I have also come across females who are trapped by addiction to pornography. Please note that I am NOT condoning or trying to make victims of those who view pornography, but I am insulted on behalf of men that you are labelling only them with this shameful act!
@Alison, you too have bought into this fallacy i’m afraid! Many women are actually the ones who make the child pornography as has been highlighted by events in the UK in the past few days and the past few months!
‘this latest example of men’s hatred and men’s contempt for women and girls’ – i may be a 20 year old man from the UK and uninformed about American magazines, but surely Vogue’s readership is not overwhelmingly male??
‘Is it because our male supremacist culture will not reduce males to women’s disposable sexualised commodities because males unlike females have certain rights’ – absolute rubbish! I struggled with my image as a teenager and felt inferior to attractive guys (actors in movies, topless calenders etc). THIS IS NOT A GENDER-SPECIFC PROBLEM!
I am all for equality. I follow the teachings of Jesus, who respected and honoured women in a way that was unheard of 2000 years ago and still is in many places in the world. What Jennifer seems to be trying to do is to demonise males and to clear females of any blame! The gender problems in this world will NOT be resolved as long as you and others like you try to make it a gender war!
I stand with you as a male in opposing inequality in all its forms, but if you insist on insulting men and labelling us all with your stereotypes, then we will see no progress at all!
Jono
It is beyond belief that you have published these images on your website.
How dare you criticise the media for sexualising children when you have made these photographs available to anyone who accesses your site?
Have you no desire to protect these little girls from further exposure and exploitation?
Shame on you.
I’m afraid I agree with this poster.
I can’t understand why you chose to publish these pictures.
At least you could have disguised the children’s faces if you had to publish them.
How are you not just as guilty of sexualising these children as French Vogue?
You could have made an ethical decision not to perpetuate the circulation of these photos on your website. Anybody can see them here = even pedophiles.
What were you thinking?
And you’ve even offered the facility for sharing and emailing them?
Hello???
Susan and Catherine, you are shooting the messenger.
Melinda did not commission this photoshoot, have these little girls spend hours and hours in hair and make up, have them pose in ‘adult’ style poses and then publish them in a mainstream adults fashion magazine which, according to one source has a readership over over 133 000, this does not include them being available online already.
The photos are included here in order to comment on Vogue’s deliberate sexualisation of little girls for profit. An attempt to describe the photos with text alone, would simply result in people typing ‘Vogue little girls photoshoot’ into google, where they are already available. One could argue the girls faces are already disguised by the troweled on make up. I doubt they would be recognisable in the playground. The horse has already bolted on these images, you are criticising the wrong person and thus, missing the point entirely.
Kelly,
Does this mean it’s OK for Melinda or anybody else to publish or publish a link to, say, snuff movies, on the grounds that she didn’t commission them, anybody can find them through a search engine, and she’s making a point about how terrible they are?
You are missing the point and so is Melinda – she has published the very images she is protesting about other people publishing – you can’t have it both ways – if you complain about Vogue using these little girls, you can’t then use them yourself to point out how they’ve been used by someone else.
At the very least, their faces could have been disguised as a mark of respect and concern for them, on this website if nowhere else.
Setting an example? Hello?
Your comment about the make up, which does nothing to disguise them, is disgusting.
Don’t you care that pedophiles can masturbate over these images through accessing the MTR website?
You don’t care about being one more site that makes these photos accessible to perverts?
Catherine,
Melinda didn’t post a link to snuff movies, she posted images available in the mainstream domain that have already been circulated to 133 000 people *at least.* The horse has already bolted on these images.
Melinda is not protesting about Vogue merely ‘publishing’ the images, but creating them, using them in an adult women’s magazine as though these children are not children at all, but mini adults, and making profit from them.
My comment about make up is disgusting? Not sure what you mean there Catherine. I was pointing out the obvious, these little girls have had more make up applied to them than most adult women would ever have on their faces.
Do I care that pedophiles might masturbate to these images? Of course, I also care that they’ll access the Big W catalogue, the Kmart catalogue, the Target Catalogue, photos of their friends children on facebook, the kids next door to them etc.
The point of the article is Vogue’s sexualisation of children for profit, you should be offended at the photos, but Vogue is who you need to criticise, not the person trying to raise awareness of the issues in order for such unethical practices to be stopped.