Victoria’s Secret recently made headlines for deciding to reverse its feminist makeover and “bring back sexiness” in response to falling sales.
Back in 2018 the lingerie brand, once celebrated for its glamorous catwalks and bombshell models, underwent a significant transformation. They retired their iconic ‘Angels’, moved away from their signature runways, and announced their ambition to be “the world’s leading advocate for women”. The shift came in response to mounting criticism that the company perpetuated patriarchal beauty standards and encouraged extreme diets and training among models. Prominent figures like American soccer star and gender equity campaigner Megan Rapinoe, for example, criticised the company for sending a “really harmful” message to young women that was “patriarchal, sexist” and viewed women “through a male lens and through what men desired”.
To make matters worse, in 2020 a New York Times investigation also exposed a “culture of misogyny” at Victoria’s Secret, as well as “widespread bullying and harassment of employees and models”. High-ranking individuals such as Ed Razek and Leslie Wexner, both chief executives at L. Brands, the former parent company of Victoria’s Secret, faced allegations of misconduct. Wexner was also connected to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
In the years that followed, the company’s marketing campaigns shifted towards inclusivity and body-positivity, featuring a much more diverse range of models including Rapinoe, plus-sized models Paloma Elsesser and Ali Tate Cutler, as well as Brazilian transgender model Valentina Sampaio. The company also announced a new board of directors comprising six women and one man, along with the ‘VS Collective’, a group of seven women set up to advise and represent the company, including Rapinoe and the actress and UNICEF ambassador Priyanka Chopra Jonas. Together they aimed to redefine the brand’s old version of ‘sexy’, swapping the Angels for “what women want”.
But is that what women wanted?
Recent sales figures suggest otherwise. Victoria’s Secret’s projected revenue for 2023 is now $6.2 billion, a 5% drop from the previous year and even lower than their $7.5 billion in 2020 when most of its shops were closed for months at a time during the pandemic. Their latest fashion documentary, Victoria’s Secret: The Tour ’23, also received poor ratings, scoring only 2.9 out of 10 on IMDb and just 1.7 stars on Amazon. Victoria’s Secret’s CEO, Martin Waters, has now acknowledged that the company’s inclusivity initiatives have not been profitable. “Despite everyone’s best endeavors,” he admitted, “it’s not been enough to carry the day.”
In my view, Victoria’s Secret shift toward inclusivity was an unnecessary over-correction. Of course models shouldn’t be starving themselves on extreme diets, but the brand has now swung too far in the opposite direction. What began as introducing some plus-size models became a complete departure from the brand’s signature style. Some Victoria’s Secret models have even revealed that they were encouraged not only to seem more realistic but to intentionally look less attractive: the brand allegedly used unflattering lighting and instructed models to slouch and make their stomachs seem bigger.
To me, this perfectly represents the prevailing feminist narrative today. It is a message that often seems less about representation and inclusivity, and more about denigrating beauty and femininity. It tells young women that there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be attractive to men, and that dressing in a way that appeals to men is a form of patriarchal oppression.
Young women are inundated with this kind of messaging. For example, Rihanna’s lingerie brand, Savage X Fenty — which also features trans, disabled and plus-sized models — frames lingerie as a form of self-love, and not about pleasing men. Rihanna herself stated that “women should be wearing lingerie for their damn selves”, while American actress Halle Berry, when launching her lingerie line Scandale Paris, declared: “Women don’t wear lingerie for men. We wear it for ourselves.” And in an article about “lingerie that subverts the male gaze”, the founder of another new brand Lonely Lingerie said: “We really wanted to celebrate female relationships. I’m sure boyfriends would love to see this beautiful lingerie, but it’s too often the focus. It’s really about giving the power back to women.”
But these are lingerie brands! Isn’t the entire point of lingerie to appeal to the male gaze? (Who is really wearing a thong for themselves?)
I don’t believe we need to pretend that we’re wearing lingerie for ourselves, nor do brands need to ditch conventionally beautiful models, for women to feel empowered. For many of us the allure of Victoria’s Secret was the sensuality, the glamour and the impossibly beautiful models.
There is also nothing wrong with women wanting to look good for men. It isn’t ‘the patriarchy conditioning us’; it’s a powerful biological drive. We can deny this all we want, but I think Victoria’s Secret plummeting sales speak for themselves.
What’s most revealing in all of this, though, is Victoria’s Secret back-pedalling. What it demonstrates to me is that, ultimately, what these woke brands really care about is not progressivism but profit. Their main focus is not ‘diversity’, ‘representation’ or ‘female empowerment’; it’s money. If Victoria’s Secret does indeed revert back to bombshell models and glamorous catwalks it will reveal that their woke feminist message wasn’t only misguided but was, from the beginning, just a marketing strategy — and one that has massively backfired.
Freya India is the author of the Substack, GIRLS. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Grant Shapps faces Tory mutiny over hydrogen levy plans”
Not put off by the billions wasted on badly thought out plans to counter the thing that isn’t happening, we’re going to double down, again..?
“Insolent, unproductive and dominated by HR, the Civil Service thinks it rules Britain”
‘Release them back to the private sector’.? They wouldn’t last a morning in the private sector.
“They wouldn’t last a morning in the private sector.”
Absolutely correct. The senior civil servants I came across when I worked amongst them were thick, arrogant beyond belief, clueless job-wise and masters at ducking and diving. Of the scores I cam across only two would have stood a chance working in the private sector.
It and the people are not much different in the large corporation part of the private sector anymore.
Igor has made an interesting discovery using UK data regarding a significant increase in hospitalizations 6 months post Covid booster;
”The most important fact we see is that for people over 50, the most dangerous period after vaccination is between 6 and 9 months after their last dose. Their risk of hospitalization is several times higher than before six months or after nine months. The increase in risk far outweighs a small reduction in the first six months.
So, people who take a Covid booster first go through a somewhat reduced hospitalization risk for the first six months, then go through a dramatically heightened risk of hospitalization, then hospitalization rates “return to normal,” with the normal being very high. Does that look like the vaccine provides any benefit? Not to me!”
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/ukhsa-boosters-greatly-increase-covid
Neil Oliver
Well said, that man. Much sense spoken.
Just a thought on ULEZ:
Are these prisons being built in preparation for Billy’s next release?
“Catastrophic Contagion” is apparently going to be the big one. How much more effective and targeted would it be if people were closely confined in 15 minute cities?
Excellent point Hux, ref the LTNs especially, something I’ve been ruminating on too.
I also wondered about the power supply required by all that additional surveillance: the local town is just finishing off it’s 2nd ‘smart junction’ and about to start a 3rd, the multiple cameras of which are all cabled. As are the many additional street cameras installed during the lockdowns – all while we’re being told to freeze to death in the dark at home. How’s that supposed to meet Net Zero then?
“I also wondered about the power supply required by all that additional surveillance”
This is where the £37 billion on Track and Trace went, something I have mentioned numerous times – smart junctions, smart cameras. T and T was never just about a bloody app.
Hey don’t forget about ‘Outbreak 24’, the SARS-5 plandemic scheduled for next year.
They’re keeping us guessing obviously. Wow these pandemics really are like buses…
I’ve not heard of ‘Outbreak 24’ Mogs. Can you post a link?
https://rumble.com/v28nqro-outbreak-24-simulazione-della-pandemia-2024-dove-il-virus-sars-cov-5-creer-.html
This simulation was in Italy in 2021. There’s probably plenty more that we’re not even aware of. Obsessive b’stards!
Many thanks Mogs.
“Fake trans applicants ‘could trick universities’”
But but but aren’t straight A pupils – whatever their race, creed or colour – simply a result of white privilege? It’s only your pronouns that count these days…..
…and this just in from down under:
https://rumble.com/v297guk-february-11-2023.html
I was appalled to learn that the Guardian loons had accused Neil Oliver of antisemitism. To accuse someone of antisematism because they talk about global elites and their out in the open conspiracies is disgusting.
Made me feel quite sick
The Groan is a sickening travesty of a publication even by the sickening standards of the MSM.
Interesting take by Craig Murray on the Sy Hersh story. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/02/sy-hersh-and-the-way-we-live-now/
“… But what most worries me about the entire story is the unanimous complicity of the mainstream media in ignoring the completely obvious.
The media line, parroted here relentlessly by the BBC and corporate media, was that the Russians had probably themselves blown up the pipeline on which they had expended such great resources and three decades of intense diplomatic activity, and which was to be the key to Russia’s single most valuable source of income for the next 40 years.
This was always quite literally incredible. You would have to be deranged to believe it.
It actually taught me not just that we truly are in the realm of totalitarianism and the Big Lie, but I learnt something very important about how the Big Lie works.
The secret is not that people genuinely believe an outrageous claim. The secret is that people do genuinely believe that they are in a battle of good against evil, and it is necessary to accept the narrative being promoted, in the interests of fighting evil.
Don’t question, just follow. If you do question, you are promoting evil.
I am sure that is how it works.
State and corporate stenographer journalists are actually intelligent individuals. If they thought about it, they would realise that the narrative that Russia blew up its own pipeline is obvious nonsense.
But they are convinced it is morally wrong to think about it…. ”
There is also the not to be overlooked issue of the No2Nato event on 25.2.in London having to go underground.
That development aloneis actually a confirmation of Peter Hitchens fear already having become reality.
He suggests attending it even if you disagree but are pro free speech.
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/edible-insects-european-union#:~:text=In%20May%202021%2C%20the%20European,the%20house%20cricket%20in%20March
A load of crap about…crap.