Glow & Grow: Black Beauty, Haircare, and Skincare Tips
- ANTM packaged contestants' trauma as entertainment, normalizing public humiliation and slut-shaming for ratings.
- Show enforced racialized beauty norms, Dani Evans pressured to close her signature gap while white contestants were celebrated.
- Body policing normalized extreme thinness, pressuring contestants and shaping eating disorders and distorted self-image among young viewers.
- Plus-size inclusion was conditional, with Toccara Jones dismissed while the franchise later promoted a white so-called plus-size winner.
- Accountability must be systemic; producers, judges, and network executives shared responsibility, not only Tyra Banks.
“Do you want to be on top?”
For many Black girls and young women who came of age in the early 2000s, that question was more than a catchphrase. It was a cultural moment. It was ambition. It was access. It was also, as we are now reckoning with, a warning.
Netflix dropped a new documentary “Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model,” this week revisiting the legacy of America’s Next Top Model and its creator and host Tyra Banks. The documentary brought together former contestants, including Dani Evans, Whitney Thompson, Shandi Sullivan, Giselle Samson, Keenyah Hill, Shannon Stewart, Ebony Haith, and Bre Scullark, alongside judges Nigel Barker, J. Alexander, and Jay Manuel.
ADVERTISEMENT
Social media has been on fire ever since. For some, the documentary confirmed long-held discomfort. For others, it reopened conversations that had been buried under nostalgia.
Here are the moments that deserve more than a social media hot take.
1. Trauma Was Packaged as Entertainment
Reality TV in the early 2000s often blurred boundaries for ratings. Still, there is a difference between documenting growth and manufacturing vulnerability .We understand that the fashion industry is tough, but this show was supposed to inspire the next generation of models
No matter what you think of ANTM, it was a modeling competition. The drunken cheating sex (or date rap?) scandal involving Sullivan was filmed and packaged as slut-shaming drama. This kind of humiliation should not have been part of the job description. Mentorship should never require this level of public shaming.
ADVERTISEMENT
2. Dani Evans’ Gap Wasn’t Just About Teeth
Evans from Cycle 6 was pressured to close her signature gap just to remain a contestant, while a white contestant a few seasons later was encouraged to keep (and, in fact, widen) hers. This was beyond hypocritical and one of the most glaring contradictions in the show’s history.
The message was clear: Black individuality required correction. White individuality was edgy and marketable.
What makes it even more tragic is that Evans actually won her cycle and couldn’t get booked because she had been on the show. In the documentary, Evans reveals that Banks knew she was struggling and did not step in to help, raising even more questions about protection, advocacy, and who is allowed to be fully seen without being reshaped.
3. Body Policing Shaped a Generation
Contestants weighing barely over 110 pounds were told they were too big. That messaging did not exist in a vacuum.
ADVERTISEMENT
For young viewers, especially young Black girls navigating beauty standards that rarely centered them, the show reinforced a narrow and punishing ideal. Eating disorders and distorted self-image do not start on television, but shows like this normalized scrutiny as motivation.
We can acknowledge the fashion industry’s harshness while still critiquing how it was translated to a teenage audience.
4. Plus-Size Representation Was Conditional
Toccara Jones was eliminated from Cycle 3 after asking for clothes that would fit her and other plus-sized women, only for the franchise to crown Thompson, a white model who said she chose to keep quiet, in the next cycle as its first plus-size winner.
Yet another hypocritical and disrespectful moment for Black women and underrepresented communities. It showed that inclusion was only acceptable when it aligned with the narrative they wanted to push, not necessarily when it challenged the system in real time.
ADVERTISEMENT
5. Accountability Should Not Be Singular
The truth is, no matter how mad we want to be at Banks, she wasn’t the only villain.
Producers, including Ken Mok and other UPN network executives, actually ran and shaped the show’s tone and structure. The judges were just as petty, disrespectful, and traumatizing as anyone else involved. They spent the most time with the contestants and fed directly off their insecurities.
Yet, as is often the case, the Black woman is expected to take full cultural weight of the entire show.
That does not remove responsibility. It simply demands context.
6. Two Things Can Be True At The Same Time
Banks opened doors. Many contestants gained exposure and opportunities that would have otherwise been inaccessible.
The show also mirrored the industry’s cruelty instead of consistently disrupting it.
Intent and impact are not the same. Did Bankshave great intentions when the show started? Most of us think she did. Did she continue a tradition of traumatizing and ridiculing a generation of women the same way it was done to her? Most of us also think she did.
For Black women in entertainment, the margin for error is thin. Microaggressions, disrespect, and dismissiveness often went unchecked on the panel. Leadership requires more than ambition. It requires protection.
The Bigger Cultural Reckoning
The early 2000s were a different era of television. Shock value was currency. Vulnerability was exploited. Humiliation was framed as growth.
Should Banks face critique? Yes. Should that critique ignore the ecosystem that rewarded trauma for ratings? No.
“Do you want to be on top?” once felt aspirational. Now it reads like a question about cost.
And for many of those women, the price was higher than we were ever told.
Read the full article from the original source
