Lately there has been a fair amount in the news regarding the policy of stores such as Abercrombie and Fitch and Lululemon to not carry larger sizes.
I made the mistake of reading the commentary. As many of you probably know, it was full of a good number of people whose commentary boiled down to "Eww, fat people, yucky. They should have to wear burlap bags until they lose enough weight that I find them attractive. Lose some weight, fatty fat fats." There were a goodly number of people who were more open to the idea of sharing space with persons of a BMI higher than "severely underweight". Some were even accepting of "normal" and "overweight" ranges. But many of these people could not understand why, to many plus-size wearing individuals, policies like these are so maddening.
The confusion is understandable. No one can be everything for everyone. We do not ask stores specializing in women's apparel to carry a men's line or vice versa. We do not ask athletic brands to carry formal wear. On the face of it, it is very reasonable that a store might focus on a niche market of sizes 00-10. Or maybe 12. Even if it is arguably a bad business decision.
Over the next few posts, I'll explore why it is not that simple. In the end, it still may not be reasonable to expect stores to serve a wider segment of the population. But I hope the frustration and anger in response to the decision not to is more understandable. As there is a lot to say, I'm splitting it into a few bite-sized chunks rather than one thesis-like entry. Let me know what you think of this approach--would you prefer larger posts? Because the odds are good that I'll have this problem a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment