Categories: world

Victoria's Secret Exec apologizes for “insensitive” anti-trans comment

Another day, another non-apology from a man. Victoria's Secret issued a statement on behalf of his Chief Marketing Officer Ed…

Another day, another non-apology from a man.

Victoria’s Secret issued a statement on behalf of his Chief Marketing Officer Ed Razek, clarifying statements made by Razek in Vogue on why the Underwear label has not cast transmissions in its dodging fashion shows.

Razek originally thought that Victoria’s Secret did not have and should not throw trans-models because they do not conform to the “imagination”, as he called it, presented by the show. Now, Razek says that the company has never thrown transmissions because they simply do not cut, not because of their gender. And that Victoria’s Secret would “definitely throw a transgender model.”

If you cut your head on this circular logic, wondering if this statement really contradicts the idea that transmissions are not part of the “imagination” that Victoria’s Secret is trying to introduce &#821

1; good people, you’re not alone!

Let’s break it down.

70-year-old white man Ed Razek is one of the people who throws the extravagant lenses palette, Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show. With models like Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner in angel wings and Scottish tartan-underwear, Victoria’s Secret broadcasts the show of long, thin, closest women at ABC in December. A holiday spectacular!

Razek recently gave an interview to Vogue about the show, the brand and its place in an underwear market which now includes more inclusive and diverse brands, such as Rihanna’s Fenty. In the interview, Razek was clear: Victoria’s Secret is not a brand for everyone, and it should not be. It will continue to promote and cater for a very specific Hadid-esque body type.

“We promote who we sell to, and we do not market for the whole world,” said Razek.

For this purpose, Victoria’s Secret has considered putting plus-size and transgender models in their showers, but finally decided against it. This is because the company must be true to its brand, to the “imagination” it sells – which, to be clear, are “physically fit” women, as Razek described them. And that imagination does not include plus size or transgender (transsexual, as Razek calls them) women:

Razek’s statement was clear and honest. Victoria’s Secret “definitely should” throw a transmodel if she cut. But the unspoken implication based on the company’s brand and past actions dictates that she would never cut because people like Razek decide what’s sexy, what’s a part of the imagination. And as Razek explained earlier, do not include trans women.

Here’s the matter: let’s not allow opinions of men like Razek or business goals for companies decide what’s sexy.

It would be a “statement” – maybe even a victory – about Victoria’s Secret threw a transgender model into its iconic course. That would say, yes, you are part of the “imagination” of what we think is sexy too. And that can mean a lot to a lot of people.

But maybe this attitude holds the power of Victorias secret when we really should continue to subdue that authority-shrinking its power together with its fast-paced sale. To dominate Victoria Secret’s approval of transmissions means that the company can, and should have the power to decide what’s sexy. Why do we still allow them to have this power?

We know what Victoria’s Secret stands for; People like Razek, and dozens of almost identical bodies as they put on their paths, make it very clear. The runway will no longer be an arbitration of what’s sexy.

Who in hell do Victoria need Secret approval when we have Rihanna?

 Https% 3a% 2f% 2fblueprint api production.s3.amazonaws.com% 2fuploads% 2fvideo uploader% 2fdistribution thumb% 2fimage% 2f85802% 2f96d1addd ba15 4020 9afc c4ae917653e9

Share
Published by
Faela