Besides being a beautiful, talented, and successful English supermodel and actress, Cara Delevingne is witty, humorously sarcastic, and, shockingly enough to a few TV anchors from Sacramento, can read a book. During a live, early morning interview on “Good Day Sacramento,” Cara Delevingne experienced about a dozen moments of patronizing sexism. Why drink a cup of coffee when you can wake up and start your day defending yourself and your career to a panel of condescending assholes?

Twenty-two year old Cara Delevingne stars as Margo Roth Spiegelman in the newly released movie “Paper Towns,” the adaptation of John Green’s popular novel of the same name. At the start of the “Good Day Sacramento” interview to promote “Paper Towns,” one overly-caffeinated anchor introduced her as “Carla,” foreshadowing the awkwardness that would ensue.

At the beginning of the interview, one female anchor asked Delevingne about the book “Paper Towns”:

“Did you get a chance to read it or do you even have time to sit and read?”

A perplexed Delevingne responded, “Uh, no I never read the book or the script actually I just kind of winged it.” Of course, she was kidding, and then explained how much she enjoyed the book and how talented the author John Green is. Asking if Delevingne read the book instead of inherently assuming that she had is extremely problematic. Almost as problematic as being totally unprepared to interview her, as this anchor obviously was.

Afterwards, Delevingne tweeted presumably about the disastrous interview and actor Zach Braff responded:

@Caradelevingne or how it's condescending to ask an actress if she's read the book.

— Zach Braff (@zachbraff) July 29, 2015

Next was another patronizing moment when a male anchor mentioned that he had read Delevingne’s IMDb page (snaps to you for intensive research in preparation for your interview, sir):

“Do you find that it’s easier for you to focus because you’re so busy? If you had down time maybe it wouldn’t be so easy for you? What do you think?”

Not only does he trivialize the work that Delevingne does, clumping it all together and simply calling her “busy,” but he assumes that what she does is easy. His leading question concludes that her work is simple and it’s just her apparent busy-ness that makes life hard. Is being a supermodel-actress no longer a real career requiring hard work? Imagine this male anchor asking the same question to a male actor. It’s hard to picture, isn’t it?

Delevingne responded more smoothly than I think most people would have been able to. “No. I don’t know where that comes from,” she said, defending herself. “No. It’s not easier to focus but… I mean I love what I do.”

Later, as Delevingne was explaining how she finds herself similar in a lot of ways to her character in the movie, the anchors start to laugh and interrupt her mid-sentence with a new slew of bizarre questions:

“I saw you in London talking a couple of weeks ago on TV, and you seemed a lot more excited about it than you do right now. Are you just exhausted?

Even ignoring the previous questions that assume she can’t read and that her career is a piece of cake, this is the line that really gets me. There are so many societal expectations of what a woman should act like, and this anchor sums them up perfectly. First, Delevingne was not peppy. But if “Good Day Sacramento” interviewed Nat Wolff, the male lead in “Paper Towns,” would he have gotten the same scrutiny? Probably not. And even though she didn’t even seem “exhausted,” so what if she was? It’s ridiculous that the anchors were becoming increasingly frustrated with Delevingne’s dry humor and laid back, not-constantly-smiling attitude. Just like if a woman is asked if she’s “tired” when she isn’t wearing makeup, it’s assumed women are exhausted when they aren’t squealing with joy at the chance to talk to “Good Day Sacramento” hosts.

Maybe there’s a cultural gap in more than just the ability to understand Delevingne’s sarcasm. Maybe American women are held to a more extreme expectation of forced peppiness, happiness, and excitement, and are more pressured to give in to that expectation. These anchors certainly wanted to back Delevingne into a corner to conform.

She responded, even more taken aback than last time:

Oh! Um, no. I mean I’m still very excited, you know the premiere was last night and it was an emotional night. It felt like the end of an era; but I’m not any less excited than I was. Maybe I had a bit more energy. It’s the morning!

She let the anchors off the hook, big time. A more honest rationale for her lack of energy might have been the lack of stimulating, or even coherent, questions that these anchors were throwing at her.

The big downhill moment was when the female anchor decided to chime in again:

“You do seem a bit irritated. Perhaps it’s just us.”

Finally, she let them have it. “Yeah, I think it’s just you,” she replied, totally in shock that the woman would say something so rude on live TV. Frustrated that Delevingne wasn’t complying with gender expectations or normative media behavior for women, the female anchor said:

“Well on that note! We’ll let you go then, how about that? We’ll let you go take a little nap, maybe get a Red Bull. How ’bout that?

Delevingne, at this point at a loss for words and probably wondering what she did to be berated by these jittery anchors, mumbled with raised eyebrows, “too far” before her interview feed cut out. Prescribing Cara a nap and a heavy dose of caffeine for her natural personality is indicative of the confusion surrounding a woman who does not fit the societal mold. After the interview was cut short, the anchors erupted in “Oooooh’s” and the female anchor yelled:

“She was in a MOOD!”

The male anchor who essentially asked Delevingne if she is too weak and womanly to handle her busy lifestyle and called her exhausted said, “You make 5 million dollars for six weeks worth of work, you can pretend to talk to Good Day Sacramento with some oomph.” Again, enough with the depreciating jabs at Delevingne’s career. As the anchors talked about how moody, irritated, and rude Delevingne was, and how offended they were that she was being sarcastic, the producers put up a still shot of Delevingne on screen from the interview and played cat hissing, growling and child screaming sounds. The anchors stopped their banter to enjoy a nice hearty laugh at the actress’s expense. The male anchor then said, almost in an attempt to justify his disappointment in Delevingne’s attitude, “She was just so peppy on UK,” followed by a belittling and terrible English accent impersonation.

Women are held to such specific standards: in beauty, in ability, in strength, in intellect, and in attitude. If we don’t question these standards when people assume them, whether it be from friends, family, or the media in this case, there’s no hope for those standards to go away. Cara Delevigne may be dry-humored, sarcastic, and not constantly smiling, but just like all women, she has power, intelligence, and drive that are greater than patriarchal norms.

Plus, I doubt “Good Day Sacramento” is going to cause Delevingne to change her sarcastic attitude anytime soon.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cara Delevingne’s Attitude Isn’t the Problem: America’s View of Women Is appeared first on Law Street.

Those of you who were America’s Next Top Model fans in recent years probably remember Angelea Preston. She was on the show during three different seasons–12, 4, and “All-Star” 17. She is now suing Tyra Banks, the creator, host, and judge of America’s Next Top Model, in a breach-of-contract suit.

Preston made it all the way to the very end of season 17, and then was disqualified. The suit alleges that she was actually the winner of season 17, and then once it was discovered that she had once worked as an escort, she was disqualified from the show and a new winner was chosen. That narrative, while coming from Preston and her lawyers, does seem like it could be consistent with the clip below from the show.

If you don’t feel like watching the clip–which is completely understandable–take my word for it that it’s incredibly vague. They essentially just say that information was brought to their attention by Preston herself, and that she was no longer eligible for the top prize. They then go onto discuss how they’ll be just judging between the two remaining participants, and that they wish Preston luck with all her future endeavors.

Preston claims that she was a legal escort, not an “escort” escort. She told the producers about it before the All-Star season even started filming. Then she claims she actually won, and then they called her and asked her all sorts of questions about being an escort. They then notified her she was disqualified. Preston explains why she’s coming forward with this now, saying:

..The assumption is correct. I did indeed win Cycle 17. Listen honey, I’m trying to write a book about my whole life and that part of my life is definitely, I mean my life is already interesting even before Top Model, I guess if you want to say, made me who I am or gave me my platform but, I guess that’s the part everybody wants to know. They want to know the real story. No I did not blab on Facebook or Twitter…What I will say about them taking it away from me, and I’ll keep it at that, until of course I get everything situated with a book deal, so I’ll throw that in the air. Basically, the reason it was taken away from me is hypocrisy…

If Preston had legitimately won the show, she would have been entitled to the prizes, which included a $100,000 contract with CoverGirl, and a photospread.

The suit, however, asks for $3 million from Banks. The reasoning behind that is probably that had she won America’s Next Top Model, her career could have been launched and she could have made way more than the original $100,000.

It’s understandable why Banks and America’s Next Top Model would not have wanted to see the headline “Escort wins America’s Next Top Model.” But if they were really that concerned about it, they should have checked out Preston’s background before–regardless of whether or not she told them about her past endeavors. To retroactively disqualify her once she succeeded does seem like it goes counter to whatever paperwork must have been signed pre-show. It will be interesting to see if Preston gets the money–and revenge–she’s looking for.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post America’s Next Top Lawsuit: Tyra Banks Sued by Former Contestant appeared first on Law Street.