Showing posts with label plus size. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plus size. Show all posts
Friday, May 30, 2014
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
What If Chubby Girls in Crop Tops Were A Thing When I Was Younger?
Lately, going through the body-positive part of Tumblr means you'll likely stumble across many pictures of fat chicks wearing crop tops. I think this is awesome, have bought a few myself, and am waiting for the right combination of hot weather and not giving a fuck to actually wear them with naught but a bra underneath as god intended.
I was wearing one over a tank top recently, and it made me think -- what if this trend, and really, the whole body positive movement, had been around when I was a teenager?
My high school experience occurred from 1998 to 2002, so we had the internet, but it was still relatively new (and slow), and things like Tumblr did not yet exist. The closest thing I had ever had to social media was my AOL profile -- I wouldn't even get a LiveJournal until my first semester of college.
So all I had to model myself after was mass media and friends. I didn't get to see shining images of happy fat ladies showing off their belly rolls and batwings. There was no example in my face to let my know it was OK to rock a mini skirt or crop top.
As a chubby teenager, my experience with my body was probably similar to lots of other fat ladies out there. I was uncomfortable in my skin a lot of the time. I had good friends who generally didn't make me feel bad about myself, at least not on purpose -- sometimes comparing myself to them did a number, but that wasn't really their fault. I was on and off diets, I couldn't be quite as trendy as I wanted because the girls' section of PacSun wouldn't get over one thigh. The really overt bullying had mostly stopped in middle school, but I still had plenty of body image issues, many of which I'm not yet over today.
If there had been a fast internet full of social media images where girls who looked like me were rocking their bodies with pride, would I have felt better? Would I have been on fewer of those diets? Maybe the issue of not finding clothes would have been the same, but it's also possible I would have spent less time comparing myself to my in-person peers if I had online ones who made me feel good?
Obviously what-ifs can never really have an answer, but just thinking about it makes me a little bit hopeful. This generation of teenage girls is growing up with something I, and people older than I am, didn't have -- widespread availability of people who look like they do, shown in a positive light.
This is why I'm pro-selfie, and why I so love things like the #everyBODYisflawless video. Women -- well, people of all genders, but especially women -- need to see what regular people look like. We need to see how different everyone is, and how that diversity is beautiful.
I was wearing one over a tank top recently, and it made me think -- what if this trend, and really, the whole body positive movement, had been around when I was a teenager?
My high school experience occurred from 1998 to 2002, so we had the internet, but it was still relatively new (and slow), and things like Tumblr did not yet exist. The closest thing I had ever had to social media was my AOL profile -- I wouldn't even get a LiveJournal until my first semester of college.
So all I had to model myself after was mass media and friends. I didn't get to see shining images of happy fat ladies showing off their belly rolls and batwings. There was no example in my face to let my know it was OK to rock a mini skirt or crop top.
As a chubby teenager, my experience with my body was probably similar to lots of other fat ladies out there. I was uncomfortable in my skin a lot of the time. I had good friends who generally didn't make me feel bad about myself, at least not on purpose -- sometimes comparing myself to them did a number, but that wasn't really their fault. I was on and off diets, I couldn't be quite as trendy as I wanted because the girls' section of PacSun wouldn't get over one thigh. The really overt bullying had mostly stopped in middle school, but I still had plenty of body image issues, many of which I'm not yet over today.
If there had been a fast internet full of social media images where girls who looked like me were rocking their bodies with pride, would I have felt better? Would I have been on fewer of those diets? Maybe the issue of not finding clothes would have been the same, but it's also possible I would have spent less time comparing myself to my in-person peers if I had online ones who made me feel good?
Obviously what-ifs can never really have an answer, but just thinking about it makes me a little bit hopeful. This generation of teenage girls is growing up with something I, and people older than I am, didn't have -- widespread availability of people who look like they do, shown in a positive light.
This is why I'm pro-selfie, and why I so love things like the #everyBODYisflawless video. Women -- well, people of all genders, but especially women -- need to see what regular people look like. We need to see how different everyone is, and how that diversity is beautiful.
Monday, May 12, 2014
From the Archive: Why I don't want a 10 to be considered "plus sized"
"From the Archive" is a series of posts that I wrote on past, no-longer-updated blogs that I feel are good enough to need a new home.
This post was originally written in June 2011.
Forgive me if this sounds like a half-cocked rant. I'm really tired today but felt like I needed to say something.
I saw that the site Refinery 29 is launching a site for "plus size ladies size 10 and up." My reaction, instead of being glad to see that, is that I am decidedly not OK with a 10 being considered plus sized. (Note: all clothing sizes I refer to are U.S. measurements.)
It's not because (as someone actually said to me on Twitter) I think 10 is "normal," which, of course, indicates that plus sizes are a deviation from that. It's not because I think "plus size" is an offensive label or that it somehow damages the otherwise-socially-acceptable size of 10. It's because plus sizes need to keep aiming up, not down.
As it is, the smaller end of plus sizes -- currently the standard is to start at 14 -- get the bulk of the good stuff. There are more options, more representation in models (though plus models are still overwhelmingly too small), and more mainstream recognition. Once you pass, say, a size 20 or 22, you're in a proverbial no-(wo)man's land.
I can only sort of speak from experience on this. The largest I have been is about a 22/24 (and the smallest in my adult life is about a 16), so I have never really faced what it's like to be someone who needs a 28, 30, 32, or larger.
What I experienced is that once your size has a 2 in front of it, there is an immediate drop in options. Lines that brag about how they are making plus sizes and are suddenly oh-so-accepting-and-awesome don't really cater to anyone high up there. When Forever 21 first introduced plus sizes, they included 1X and 2X. That's not exactly much of an extension, especially when you consider that they also run small. Now, they have corrected themselves a little, going to 3X and adding in more styles. But that still excludes a lot of people.
So my reason is that including size 10 in the line of plus means the border is even lower, so women who wear sizes higher than 20 will be considered even farther outside the threshold between straight and plus sizes. In a world where lines already cater to the smallest plus size possible, the last thing we need is to have that size be even smaller. It's not because I think being called a plus size is a bad thing. It's because too many other people do, so to be further outside the so-called norm will be incredibly damaging to a group that is already too often excluded.
This post was originally written in June 2011.
Forgive me if this sounds like a half-cocked rant. I'm really tired today but felt like I needed to say something.
I saw that the site Refinery 29 is launching a site for "plus size ladies size 10 and up." My reaction, instead of being glad to see that, is that I am decidedly not OK with a 10 being considered plus sized. (Note: all clothing sizes I refer to are U.S. measurements.)
It's not because (as someone actually said to me on Twitter) I think 10 is "normal," which, of course, indicates that plus sizes are a deviation from that. It's not because I think "plus size" is an offensive label or that it somehow damages the otherwise-socially-acceptable size of 10. It's because plus sizes need to keep aiming up, not down.
As it is, the smaller end of plus sizes -- currently the standard is to start at 14 -- get the bulk of the good stuff. There are more options, more representation in models (though plus models are still overwhelmingly too small), and more mainstream recognition. Once you pass, say, a size 20 or 22, you're in a proverbial no-(wo)man's land.
I can only sort of speak from experience on this. The largest I have been is about a 22/24 (and the smallest in my adult life is about a 16), so I have never really faced what it's like to be someone who needs a 28, 30, 32, or larger.
What I experienced is that once your size has a 2 in front of it, there is an immediate drop in options. Lines that brag about how they are making plus sizes and are suddenly oh-so-accepting-and-awesome don't really cater to anyone high up there. When Forever 21 first introduced plus sizes, they included 1X and 2X. That's not exactly much of an extension, especially when you consider that they also run small. Now, they have corrected themselves a little, going to 3X and adding in more styles. But that still excludes a lot of people.
So my reason is that including size 10 in the line of plus means the border is even lower, so women who wear sizes higher than 20 will be considered even farther outside the threshold between straight and plus sizes. In a world where lines already cater to the smallest plus size possible, the last thing we need is to have that size be even smaller. It's not because I think being called a plus size is a bad thing. It's because too many other people do, so to be further outside the so-called norm will be incredibly damaging to a group that is already too often excluded.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
From the Archive: Price discrimination is never OK (an open letter to JC Penney)
"From the Archive" is a series of posts that I wrote on past, no-longer-updated blogs that I feel are good enough to need a new home.
This post was originally written in February 2011.
Dear JC Penney:
To the left is a photo I took over the summer, in one of your stores near Buffalo, NY. I believe it was in the Walden Galleria mall, but precise location doesn't really matter as you have consistent stock across the country.
What you see is the exact same style shirt, only one is taken from the misses department and the other is from the plus sizes. The most important thing to note is that the plus size shirt costs $14 more than the misses size.
This is not OK.
There is absolutely no logical reason a size 1X should be more expensive than a size XL. I know what the stock answers are - that plus size clothing requires more fabric or that it is more complicated to make and therefore requires more skilled (and costly) construction.
I will refrain from using profanity in this letter, but let me say that my gut reaction to that "explanation" generally involves the excrement of male cattle.
Especially in this case. See, this is a t-shirt with some non-functional decorative buttons sewn to the front. This is not an underwire bra, a metal corset, a wedding dress or some other item that must conform perfectly to the wearer's body to function properly. IT IS A T-SHIRT. It's made of cotton; intended to hang from the shoulders and maybe cling to the lumps and bumps of the person inside. The construction does not vary greatly with size.
The other common excuse - that plus sizes require more fabric - wouldn't hold much water, either. The two shirts pictured above are an XL and a 1X. Arguably, those are barely different sizes at all. Now, I tried both on and I can say that the 1X had a little bit more room in it, but it didn't feel like it was even a whole size bigger than the XL. If higher supply cost were truly the case, all clothing would have prices that grade up with size. I mean, it takes more fabric to make a medium or large than it does to make an extra small, and yet those are always the same price. The cutoff point at which your company is charging more is arbitrary - based on a pre-determined line between sizes that are considered normal and ones that are othered. But there is no real difference if you look at it objectively.
So why do you, as a company, feel compelled to contribute to the rampant discrimination that plus sized people (in the case of this shirt, plus size women) already face on a daily basis? Is it not enough that we encounter taunts from strangers, rude comments from family and "friends," are ostracized from most clothing stores, kicked off airplanes, and constantly treated like we are stupid, lazy, gluttonous or hideous? Is it not enough that doctors ignore our legitimate concerns or blame every little thing on fat? Since fat people are more likely to be discriminated against for employment and more likely to live in poverty, how does it even make sense to try and charge us more?
And did you really think we were too stupid to notice? Luckily, my body is on the cusp between plus sizes and misses, so I grabbed a shirt from each department. Someone who is slightly larger might not even know the shirt was made in misses sizes, and therefore wouldn't know she was being charged more simply because of her natural body type.
This price gouging and discriminatory practice must end. I realize that this particular shirt is probably no longer in stores, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not the first or last time you've cheated your fatter customers out of some of their hard-earned money. Therefore I demand that styles be the same price across departments. If they are the same style, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be more expensive in plus sizes. Comparable styles must be comparably priced. Otherwise, you are committing an egregious act of size discrimination. I, for one, will not buy another item from JC Penney until it is rectified, and I will encourage my family, friends, and internet followers (yes, I have some) to do the same.
I encourage you to do the right thing.
This post was originally written in February 2011.
Dear JC Penney:To the left is a photo I took over the summer, in one of your stores near Buffalo, NY. I believe it was in the Walden Galleria mall, but precise location doesn't really matter as you have consistent stock across the country.
What you see is the exact same style shirt, only one is taken from the misses department and the other is from the plus sizes. The most important thing to note is that the plus size shirt costs $14 more than the misses size.
This is not OK.
There is absolutely no logical reason a size 1X should be more expensive than a size XL. I know what the stock answers are - that plus size clothing requires more fabric or that it is more complicated to make and therefore requires more skilled (and costly) construction.
I will refrain from using profanity in this letter, but let me say that my gut reaction to that "explanation" generally involves the excrement of male cattle.
Especially in this case. See, this is a t-shirt with some non-functional decorative buttons sewn to the front. This is not an underwire bra, a metal corset, a wedding dress or some other item that must conform perfectly to the wearer's body to function properly. IT IS A T-SHIRT. It's made of cotton; intended to hang from the shoulders and maybe cling to the lumps and bumps of the person inside. The construction does not vary greatly with size.
The other common excuse - that plus sizes require more fabric - wouldn't hold much water, either. The two shirts pictured above are an XL and a 1X. Arguably, those are barely different sizes at all. Now, I tried both on and I can say that the 1X had a little bit more room in it, but it didn't feel like it was even a whole size bigger than the XL. If higher supply cost were truly the case, all clothing would have prices that grade up with size. I mean, it takes more fabric to make a medium or large than it does to make an extra small, and yet those are always the same price. The cutoff point at which your company is charging more is arbitrary - based on a pre-determined line between sizes that are considered normal and ones that are othered. But there is no real difference if you look at it objectively.
So why do you, as a company, feel compelled to contribute to the rampant discrimination that plus sized people (in the case of this shirt, plus size women) already face on a daily basis? Is it not enough that we encounter taunts from strangers, rude comments from family and "friends," are ostracized from most clothing stores, kicked off airplanes, and constantly treated like we are stupid, lazy, gluttonous or hideous? Is it not enough that doctors ignore our legitimate concerns or blame every little thing on fat? Since fat people are more likely to be discriminated against for employment and more likely to live in poverty, how does it even make sense to try and charge us more?
And did you really think we were too stupid to notice? Luckily, my body is on the cusp between plus sizes and misses, so I grabbed a shirt from each department. Someone who is slightly larger might not even know the shirt was made in misses sizes, and therefore wouldn't know she was being charged more simply because of her natural body type.
This price gouging and discriminatory practice must end. I realize that this particular shirt is probably no longer in stores, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not the first or last time you've cheated your fatter customers out of some of their hard-earned money. Therefore I demand that styles be the same price across departments. If they are the same style, there is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be more expensive in plus sizes. Comparable styles must be comparably priced. Otherwise, you are committing an egregious act of size discrimination. I, for one, will not buy another item from JC Penney until it is rectified, and I will encourage my family, friends, and internet followers (yes, I have some) to do the same.
I encourage you to do the right thing.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Friday, February 21, 2014
Friday Fashion: Laid-Back for School
I've been trying to keep up a more mature look when I'm in class, in part because if the reasons I discussed when I talked about looking young. And often I'll wear dresses, but sometimes I just feel like pulling on jeans and a t-shirt. So I found a way to dress that a little more professionally, by adding a blazer (I'm obsessed with this one from H&M+ that I recently found) plus some nice accessories like a long necklace, cute bag, and oxfords.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Don't Fat-Shame. Really, Just Don't Do It.
Seriously. Just don't fat-shame.
There's no point to it. It doesn't make people magically thinner. Being magically thinner wouldn't make people magically healthier. It doesn't make you superior. It doesn't do anything positive.
All it does it promote bigotry. It makes people hate themselves. It reveals that you are an ugly and small-minded individual full of prejudice.
It's worse for fat people than actually being fat. It's degrading to mental health. It promotes stereotypes. Stereotypes have real implications.
It leads to fat people being hired less. It leads to fat people hearing rude comments shouted at them from cars. It makes people feel awful.
It hides behind some veil of "helping." People who fat-shame get away with it because they think they're encouraging fat people to de-fat themselves. And apparently de-fatting is the be all and end all of...something.
But it just causes pain. It leads to depression and isolation and prejudice. It causes nothing good and everything bad.
So just don't do it.
There's no point to it. It doesn't make people magically thinner. Being magically thinner wouldn't make people magically healthier. It doesn't make you superior. It doesn't do anything positive.
All it does it promote bigotry. It makes people hate themselves. It reveals that you are an ugly and small-minded individual full of prejudice.
It's worse for fat people than actually being fat. It's degrading to mental health. It promotes stereotypes. Stereotypes have real implications.
It leads to fat people being hired less. It leads to fat people hearing rude comments shouted at them from cars. It makes people feel awful.
It hides behind some veil of "helping." People who fat-shame get away with it because they think they're encouraging fat people to de-fat themselves. And apparently de-fatting is the be all and end all of...something.
But it just causes pain. It leads to depression and isolation and prejudice. It causes nothing good and everything bad.
So just don't do it.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Hey, Tim Gunn, Fashion Doesn't End at Lord & Taylor
Lately the internet has been abuzz with something Tim Gunn said: that fashion ends at a size 12. Here's the quote:
There's no denying that the plus size market is lousy. Many designers flat-out refuse to make them, and the stores that do (like Old Navy, Forever 21, ModCloth, and, more recently, H&M) do so in a way that seems half-hearted and begrudging. They'll make the lines only available in select stores -- or nowhere in stores, forcing fat women to shop online. The clothes will be a sad comparison to the rest of the store's collection, and usually cost more with fewer options.
Even on Gunn's own show, Project Runway, when designers are asked to make clothes for "real" people (not always plus sizes; this just means "not models") they lose their minds. They have no idea how to design for people with breasts or hips, and usually shed lots of tears before throwing them into some shapeless sack and then blaming them and their horrendous bodies for making the clothes look bad.
That's a pretty good analogy for the mainstream fashion industry, really.
I'm not denying Gunn's assertion that the pickings get pretty slim (ha) above a size 12. Things are even worse -- nonexistent, really -- if you go above a size 24. He's totally right about that.
However, equating the eighth floor of Lord & Taylor with all of fashion bothers me. It ignores the many designers who make excellent plus sized clothes, and the boutiques that sell them. Lines like Kiyonna, Igigi, Domino Dollhouse, Lucie Lu, Monif C, etc. Stores like Re/Dress or Lee Lee's Valise. Let's not discount them and the great things they do.
I love to see someone like Gunn on our side. But I think it would be good to acknowledge that fashion goes outside of a few big stores with the same big designers; that it can be and is coming from independent labels and shops. It would be great if mainstream designers put more than a passing thought (if any at all) into their plus labels. But since they don't, let's give some credit to the people who clothe us when throwing ourselves out a window isn't an option.
"Go to Lord & Taylor on Fifth Avenue, I think it's the eighth floor, and it's just a department called 'Woman.' It's rather devastating. You've never seen such hideous clothes in your entire life. I mean, it's simply appalling. Thank God there are no windows on that floor, because if I were a size 18, I'd throw myself right out the window [after seeing those clothes]. It's insulting what these designers do to these women."He makes some good points. If you only go to Lord & Taylor or Macy's or any of those department stores, then yes, the prospects are bleak. But "fashion" goes far beyond a few stores.
There's no denying that the plus size market is lousy. Many designers flat-out refuse to make them, and the stores that do (like Old Navy, Forever 21, ModCloth, and, more recently, H&M) do so in a way that seems half-hearted and begrudging. They'll make the lines only available in select stores -- or nowhere in stores, forcing fat women to shop online. The clothes will be a sad comparison to the rest of the store's collection, and usually cost more with fewer options.
Even on Gunn's own show, Project Runway, when designers are asked to make clothes for "real" people (not always plus sizes; this just means "not models") they lose their minds. They have no idea how to design for people with breasts or hips, and usually shed lots of tears before throwing them into some shapeless sack and then blaming them and their horrendous bodies for making the clothes look bad.
That's a pretty good analogy for the mainstream fashion industry, really.
I'm not denying Gunn's assertion that the pickings get pretty slim (ha) above a size 12. Things are even worse -- nonexistent, really -- if you go above a size 24. He's totally right about that.
However, equating the eighth floor of Lord & Taylor with all of fashion bothers me. It ignores the many designers who make excellent plus sized clothes, and the boutiques that sell them. Lines like Kiyonna, Igigi, Domino Dollhouse, Lucie Lu, Monif C, etc. Stores like Re/Dress or Lee Lee's Valise. Let's not discount them and the great things they do.
I love to see someone like Gunn on our side. But I think it would be good to acknowledge that fashion goes outside of a few big stores with the same big designers; that it can be and is coming from independent labels and shops. It would be great if mainstream designers put more than a passing thought (if any at all) into their plus labels. But since they don't, let's give some credit to the people who clothe us when throwing ourselves out a window isn't an option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)