You know Ouroboros, don’t you? He’s the mythological lizard curled up and eating his own tail. He looks a bit like this:
Wait a minute! That isn’t an illustration of a myth! That’s a real lizard.
There’s another place where I think I have met Ouroboros. He seems to be a permanent fixture in the world of plus size fashion.
For instance, take a look at this article and soak up the inability to logic. Go on, I’ll wait for you. That’s right: it’s all our fault that nobody wants to give us nice clothes because we don’t really want nice clothes. Never mind that retailers give us next to nothing to choose from; refuse to advertise what they deign to offer us; charge us a great deal extra for the privilege of wearing unattractive, poorly made clothes in fabrics that do not breathe; stop manufacturing clothing lines that have been in place for a mere three months when we didn’t stampede the store to buy ugly clothes we didn’t know were there in the first place. Nope, it’s our fault.
We’re fat. That means we’re all stay-at-home-moms with a martyr complex, apparently. There’s nothing wrong with being a SAHM, of course. It’s a worthy thing to want to mold the minds of your children. It’s just that not all of us are staying at home with the kids, and those who are still deserve to have some nice clothes available at a reasonable price.
Me? I have no children. I work from home. My income does not allow me to drop $150.00 on a whim every other day. I still want to look good. I want to walk into a store that carries clothes I can fit into and that follow the trends in both cut and color. I’m tired of the combination of black, baby pastels, and eyeball-melting big prints that are such staples of the women’s section.
And the problem does not appear to be being solved in the education of a new generation of fashion designers, either.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been watching The Fashion Show on Bravo. It’s no Project Runway, by any means, and is sadly lacking in Tim Gunn (call me, Tim!), but it’s been filling in that bleak, lonely space while I wait for Tim and the gloriously deranged Heidi Klum to be back on my television again.
This week, the challenge was the infamous ‘Average Woman Challenge’ that typically throws designers for a loop worse than designing for drag queens or pro wrestlers does. Why? These women are sooooo faaaaaaaaaaaaat!
In the inimitable words of Col. Sherman T. Potter: mule fritters!
The ‘real women’ of this challenge – as opposed to the apparently fake women who usually model because, hey, models are some kind of robots, right? – were office workers at the modeling agency that supplies them robots every week. I would say that most of them ranged from roughly a size 6 to a size 10. In a country where the average size worn is a 14, that’s not precisely humongous.
Back in the workroom, most of the designers spent half their first day padding their mannequins to represent their ZOMIGODSOHUUUUUGE clients and complaining about the measurements they had to work with. One wails that her client has 43″ hips. Daniella immediately counters that that’s nothing. She’s expected to dress someone with 45″ hips!!! Oh the humanity!!!
Psst! Baby designers! Yeah, over here in the dark corner. Honey, I remember 45″ hips fondly. There are people out there whose hips have never been as small as 45″ in their adult lives. And you know what? We still need clothes and we’d still like pretty ones.
It’s also interesting to note that while most of the clients for the challenge were pretty clear in letting their designers know what they did and didn’t like, Daniella’s model – the largest woman in the room, incidentally – either couldn’t or wouldn’t articulate her needs or her desires. I have to wonder how much of this is because she doesn’t know/care, and how much of it is because she works in an industry where women two inches taller than her and ten inches smaller around are being warned that they are getting too fat for fashion assignments.
And of course someone trotted out (with a straight face, I might add) that annoying cliche about how models are supposed to act purely as hangers for the work of the designer. More mule fritters, kids.
Clothing design – at it’s best – is an interactive piece of art that works with the body it covers. When an outfit looks best on a moving person who is breathing, bending, stretching, and cavorting, that’s a successful piece in the truest sense. Somewhere along the line, we seem to have forgotten that fact. New designers are being taught that their work is an art entirely separate from its purpose, they want to put their art on something as close to a walking hanger as possible, women who are actually considerably smaller than average are told they are too enormous to wear these beautiful clothes, and those of us who are significantly bigger than average are informed that we couldn’t wear these things if we wanted them…and by the way, dears, you don’t want them, anyway.
The serpent swallows its own tail. The generously proportioned woman is told not to go naked, but not to try to look good while covering her (hah!) shame.
People, it’s time for a revolution. Not a dreary one nor a bloody one. We need a revolution of fabulousness. I want each and every one of you to stand up and do something about this. We are not a tiny minority. We are a mighty community and we are not being served.
I want every person reading this blog – fat or thin, tall or short, male or female, every color of the rainbow and all stops in between – to refuse to be invisible. Write to a retailer or manufacturer and say that you want clothes in your size. Wear something down the street that makes people stop and stare in wonder. Laugh in the face of someone who tries to shame you into ‘slimming’ colors or ‘weight appropriate’ cuts.
We. Deserve. Nice. Clothes.
And baby designers everywhere, I hate to break the news but in the longrun you are working for us. Get your tail out of your mouth and start recognizing that bodies are part of your work.
Embrace bodies.
They’re all beautiful.
Dearest Twistie, thank you for featuring this depressing article. I am someone who has lost and regained a total of 148 lbs in the last five years largely because of medication side effects. I’m now at my highest weight ever and ok with it. I’m tired of the response of friends and family, which boiled down amounts to the fact that it’s ok that I’m fat as long as I’m completely ashamed of it.
No.
For health reasons, I’m willing to drop some weight by getting some unhealthy eating patterns under control. I’m NOT willing to hate my body or belittle myself, now or ever again. I’m going to write to Eddie Bauer today. I’ve always loved their clothes no matter what size I am, and their plus sized offerings seem to be shrinking, too.
Comment by rosarita — June 6, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Ann Taylor is one store I will never buy from. I went into one of their boutiques several years ago to buy a sweater for my mother for Christmas. I was informed they didn’t have anything in my size. When I made it clear I was buying for a gift, the woman helped me find what I was looking for and hustled me out quickly.
A few years later they began their other two boutiques, one appealing to a younger demographic and one for plus sizes. Every single piece in the plus sized store had a grey tone to it. Seriously, the young store had hot pink, the regular store had an intense peony pink, and the plus sized store had a greyed out ashes of roses. Now some women look killer in ashes of roses, but I’m not one of them. This was true for every single shade. Plus sized women were clearly supposed to fade into the background in drab excuses for the seasons popular colors.
We have to stop accepting it.
Comment by Fabrisse — June 6, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
This is why I quit going to malls. I got tired of looking for clothes my size behind the housewares department. I shop mainly boutiques both in person and on line. And I am a serious clothing addict. I have figured, their loss, but maybe I should complain more instead of walking out. It’s sad that the largest retail of plus sized clothing is Walmart and it’s all sweat pants and elastic waisted jeans. And Chicos is insane for not offering more sizes because we are their damned demographic. 30-50 plus year olds with disposable income. I think I’ll go put on something from Skullz of London and troll the mall today…Thanks!
Comment by Jennie — June 6, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
@rosarita: There is no shame in any body size. Your body is your body, and your family needs to start understanding that.
Definitely write to Eddie Baur, too. Companies like EB need to know that we’re here and we want to give them our money…if they’ll just figure out that they need to give us nice clothes in return.
@Fabrisse: exactly. Just because we have larger waistlines doesn’t mean we can’t wear bright colors. That’s a matter of individual coloration, not dress size.
@Jennie: Rock the mall, girl! It’s time for us all to start making a ruckus. Besides, I bet you look fabulous in your Skullz gear.
Comment by Twistie — June 6, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
You know what really makes me crazy about this? These designers have an example of a larger woman who looks great in front of them every week. Fern Mallis looks fabulous, and I want to know where she buys her clothes and what designers she’s wearing. Although I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that she has them all custom made.
Comment by Margo — June 6, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
You know, Margo, I had the same thought. I would absolutely thieve half of Fern’s wardrobe given the slightest opportunity.
Comment by Twistie — June 6, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
I am a bona fide, size 22 big girl. My friends, none of whom are above a 14, have come to me for fashion advice for years. Yet I can’t have any of the clothes I pick out for them. Completely unfair, unjust.
Comment by rebecca — June 6, 2009 @ 10:53 pm
Thank you, Twistie — nicely done. The thing that bothers me about shifting the plus sizes off to the estores is that these stores might as well say “don’t bother coming in, Big Girl!” And I completely agree with you on The Fashion Show. I wanted to slap the stupid out of those designers and loved it when Isaac called them sizist. Now if only his designs were available in the plus size section at Target as well!
Comment by Kerry — June 6, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
If only plus size clothes were available in the plus size section at Target. Every time I go to one, and I’m talking about multiple Targets in multiple states here, I find the following things in the plus size section: maternity clothes (hi, I’m fat, not pregnant, thanks for playing), regular-size sale racks, misses sale racks, racks of clothing from the dressing rooms to be taken back to their regular locations, and one single, solitary rack of ugly plus size clothes. And on one shameful location, those clothes were entirely tankinis. So I don’t buy anything at Target. If they want me to buy lightbulbs and rugs and Archer Farms foods there, they’ll offer a dress I can (and would!) wear. Until that day, I’ll take my money elsewhere.
Comment by Mango — June 7, 2009 @ 12:55 am
If only plus size clothes were available in the plus size section at Target. Every time I go to one, and I’m talking about multiple Targets in multiple states here, I find the following things in the plus size section: maternity clothes (hi, I’m fat, not pregnant, thanks for playing), regular-size sale racks, misses sale racks, racks of clothing from the dressing rooms to be taken back to their regular locations, and one single, solitary rack of ugly plus size clothes. And on one shameful location, those clothes were entirely tankinis. So I don’t buy anything at Target. If they want me to buy lightbulbs and rugs and Archer Farms foods there, they’ll offer a dress I can (and would!) wear. Until that day, I’ll take my money elsewhere.
Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!
Comment by Mango — June 7, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Dear Twistie and friends,
I’ve just come home from the Netherlands. I spent a week or so in the far northern Dutch city of Groningen – not a big city by any means – where on the main shopping street, the Zwannestraat, there was a boutique for women’s clothing in large sizes – and, across the street, another boutique for the same – and, around the corner, a third. And an Ulla Popken store, a few blocks away.
There are European clothing manufactures specializing in bigger sizes. I bought a black linen summer jacket by Yoek – visible at http://www.yoek.nl/collectie36.htm –
and it is maybe my favorite garment EVER.
Here’s a site for another designer:
http://www.wille-fashion.com/fashion/kollektionen/english.html
So, companies do exist that make fashionable clothing in plus sizes. It’s not impossible to make a profit doint this. It’s just, nobody in America does it, apparently. – Actually, Eskandar, Shirin Guild and Damask make beautiful plus size clothing, but there are too many digits to the left of the decimal point for this buyer to own any of those lovely things.
I buy most of my clothing online from Ulla Popken. Their US line generally has less attractive clothing than their European line – but it’s better than Wal-Mart.
As I read this over I ask myself if I am sounding snobbish. But – I really want and need to look nice. It makes a big difference in how seriously I am taken as a professional and in how comfortable people are with me.
Comment by Pamela — June 7, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Pamela—Do you know of any American store that sells the Yoek line? I just went to their site and some of their stuff is gorgeous!
Comment by MamaD — June 7, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Dear MamaD,
No, I do not! I have written to the company to ask if anything is available retail on the web, but I have not yet received an answer.
I did find a Yoek shirt on eBay today, but of course you get what you get on eBay.
Longing for Yoek in the Midwest…
Comment by Pamela — June 7, 2009 @ 2:25 pm
Thanks you. I am with you in the revolution.
I’ve actually given up on stores like Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, etc. I don’t think they will ever get it. I choose to support lines that have dedicated themselves to women with size, curves, etc. I will only buy from businesses like Svoboda, Donna Ricco, Kiyonna, Igigi, Marina Rinaldi, Anna Scholz, B and Lu, etc. There are some lines that successfully design for all bodies like Calvin Klein, Harari, Anne Klein, David Meister, Craig Taylor, Lily, Melissa Masse, Rachel Pally and Mossimo. They seem to have dedicated themselves to not just creating for, but also selling to women of all (or at least more) sizes.
I am still happy write letters to any company. I think this site and our talking about the issue publicly helps, so thank you again for providing this venue. Love yourself!!
Comment by Pinky — June 7, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Ummm, that would be THANK You.
Comment by Pinky — June 7, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Where ARE the plus-sized clothes in Target?!!
I end up getting jeans and underwear in WalMart, t-shirts in A. C. Moore and dress clothes in Lane Bryant and Macy’s and bras in a local lingerie place. Torrid has fab novelty shirts. I give props to Lauren by Ralph Lauren and MaxMara for their Marina Rinaldi line. The other stores mentioned by Twistie and the other commentors are only good for accessories.
Is it rocket science to design for women above a size 0?
Comment by dcsurfergirl — June 9, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Thank you, Twistie, for posting this!
I watched that episode of The Fashion Show last week. As a Project Runway junkie, I must admit that I enjoy this show. However, parts of this particular episode made me feel self-conscious and ashamed of my body. Oh, BTW, I wear a size 4 petite.
At first, I was happy to see these “real women” on my TV screen. Many of them looked just like me. But then, I started hearing the designers saying things like, ““I don’t do average, no matter what anyone says I won’t sacrifice my vision!” Hmmm. OK. I actually had no idea that any clothing designer would feel this way.
I keep telling myself that perhaps this commentary was taken out of context, as we are dealing with a reality show. Still, I wonder if the designers of any of the clothing I wear would be ashamed to see their garment plastered upon such a chunky monkey as myself. It would be a real pity, since I have the money to spend.
Anyway, I’m glad to know that I am not the only person who saw that episode and was a bit confused by the reactions of some of the designers.
Comment by Em — June 9, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
The Fashion Show notwithstanding–I’m one of their OMG, she’s so huge types, and I wear a size 6 or 8–there are rational, non-judgmental reasons that mass market shops don’t stock lots of larger sizes. This is an enormously competitive industry, and nobody is looking to leave easy money on the table. I explain here: http://www.doublex.com/section/life/real-reason-ann-taylor-hates-plus-sizes but the charts are terribly small, so there are better ones here: http://www.deepglamour.net/deep_glamour/2009/06/plus-sizes-the-big-picture.html
Comment by Virginia Postrel — June 9, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Virginia Postrel, thanks for the link to the article. It doesn’t answer any questions about why weight is seen the way it is, but I figured there had to be some business sense behind the lack of plus-sized clothes. In a capitalist economy, just the fact that fatness is seen as undesirable would not be enough to stop big businesses from approaching that part of the market. And we are in a capitalist economy!
Comment by Nariya — June 10, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
You know, Virginia Postrel, I was going to write a refutation of that article, but I find that Fillyjonk at Shapely Prose has quite nicely beaten me to the punch.
http://kateharding.net/2009/06/10/wait-you-mean-there-are-supposed-to-be-women-inside-these-clothes/
The fact remains that there are dozens of far more specialized markets that can find their needs met in average stores in every mall in America. Sometimes it seems as though I could find a left-handed waffle iron more easily than I can find a pair of jeans that go around my waist. Yes, that was sarcasm for the point of emphasis, but not by as much as you might think…and I’m really not that far from the sizes presented in the average clothing store.
The fact also remains that while a left-handed waffle iron really isn’t all that useful (and I am a proud southpaw, incidentally), we all need clothes. It’s a basic necessity, and there are huge numbers of women and men who can barely find a basic necessity.
Yet another fact that remains is that our society likes to judge the moral worth and intelligence of people based on visuals. Imagine how fun it is to go for a job interview for a responsible position when all you can find to buy are tropical print muu-muus and pastel sweatshirts with little cutesy animals embroidered on them.
And since more and more plus size shopping is funneled to the internet, we are loathe to spend the money and time and effort on buying clothes that may or may not match the size chart given, and without being able to judge the quality of either fabric or construction until it gets to us…and then go through the hassle and expense of multiple returns/exchanges.
And then we are punished. Because buying is a hassle and the products we truly need are not made available, our options are cut further back.
Yeah. That makes great economic sense.
Comment by Twistie — June 10, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Since Fillyjonk’s “refutation” consisted of admitting that she didn’t understand the math, it hardly counts as a ringing denunciation.
Comment by CyndiF — June 10, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
Amen. Just, amen. It’s absurd for these retailers to tell me to shop online for plus sizes, because *I*, like every woman on earth, must TRY ON THE PANTS before I buy them. Why? Because there is no such thing as a standard size 20 (or a standard size 2).
I have the same problem at Target at Mango. I live in the southeastern U.S. and every Target I’ve been in is exactly as she describes. And when I do shop at Target, and find the usual clusterf*ck of maternity clothes and sales racks, I complain to the nearest employee. Who rolls her eyes and dismisses me, I’m sure.
Comment by Jezebella — June 11, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Please get rid of Twistie on the site. She’s not just ugly as sin, she’s obese and disprespectful. Do it now. Thanks.
Comment by Studboy — June 11, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
The thing is, though, Postrel’s graph of women’s weights doesn’t tell us that much about American women’s average size. There are women who weigh 160 who wear a size 14 and women of the same weight who wear a size 8. If someone could find a graph or table showing the distribution of sizes among American women, I could probably do some decent slicing and dicing of it – because, in fact, I do understand the math.
I also think that this blog has a role to play in the revolution. I’ve noticed that the blog often gives coupon codes – advertising – to businesses which sell plus-size clothing online but in none of their retail outlets (J. Jill and Old Navy, I’m looking at you). Now, I don’t understand why the three-floor Old Navy flagship in Chicago, which makes room for maternity, can’t give a quarter of the third floor to samples which fat girls can try on and use to place orders for clothing to be shipped to the store next week for free. And I don’t understand why J. Jill can’t offer plus sizes in some of its larger stores, the same way Talbots carries women’s sizes in some, but not all, of their outlets. Now, every time I complain to a giant corporation I get a boilerplate ass-covering which addresses none of my accusations. But I believe Manolo for the Big Girl does have enough clout to actually make corporations answer to their consumers.
Comment by Maureen — June 11, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
Maureen raises a good question, but you couldn’t put such numbers on a meaningful two-dimensional graph. Sizes are much more complex than weights, because they incorporate multiple dimensions and proportions. That’s why, as Jezebella notes, and pretty much everyone has noticed, sizes aren’t standard. They vary from brand to brand and even style to style within the same brand. IMHO, this is a feature not a bug. If sizes really were standardized, only the lucky few (if anyone) would be able to find clothes that fit. We may have to go from store to store and try a zillion brands, but with so much variation, at least there’s hope. My Atlantic piece got into some of the issues about fit (which is complex at any weight) and looked various strategies to help consumers find better matches: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clothes
Having read lots of comments on lots of sites, I realize that I probably should have gone into more detail about the inventory and management costs involved in maintaining more SKUs (in this case, versions of a particular style). These costs are substantial and far more important than the cost of additional fabric, which people tend to fixate on because it’s tangible and easily understood. If adding one or two more sizes doesn’t get you that many more customers, it’s hard to justify carrying the cost of the additional SKUs. That’s why the fact that larger women are spread out over so many versions of “larger” means they wind up ill-served. It also explains a lot of the unflattering muu-muu designs, which are lame attempts to cover more people with the same size. (The bad prints are harder to explain, since goes-with-everything black or navy would make more sense.)
Specialized markets–the left-handed waffle irons of the world–tend to be served in specialty stores, not in mass chains, and often are best served by the aggregation provided online. But as Zappos has demonstrated, if you’re dealing in items that need to be tried on, you can build loyal customers with a generous return policy.
As a number of commenters noted on DoubleX, women who wear petite sizes–a category that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re tiny, just short-waisted or short-legged–suffer many of the same problems in finding clothes that women looking for plus-sizes have, including the problem of sizes available only online. (And don’t get me started on the problems of my friend who wears a size 4 shoe.) The difference is that they do not interpret their problems as “punishment,” because being short-waisted has no cultural meaning. Larger women face enough real prejudice without imputing meaning to business decisions that are not meant as judgments on anyone’s worth.
Comment by Virginia Postrel — June 12, 2009 @ 5:08 am
I should add, finally, that the fundamental problem is not that making clothes for all different body types is “hard”–though it is–but that it is hard and unprofitable. If plus sizes (or petites, or pants and jackets that would actually fit my unusually proportioned body without alteration) could sell at twice the price of regular-size versions of the same items, I’m sure we’d see plenty of them in the stores.
Comment by Virginia Postrel — June 12, 2009 @ 5:18 am
True, women’s sizes are not standard.
But would it be soooo hard to size women’s clothes the way men’s clothes are sized? I would be a lot more willing to order pants online if they would tell me what the waist and hip measurements are, because then I might have an idea if they would fit.
I have clothes in at least three sizes that all fit me now because of weird sizing. I tried on a pair of Levis yesterday in a 6. Wayyyy too tight. Yet I bought some Levis the other day that are a 4. Which I am not. (OK, I got them at TJMAxx and I think they were seconds because they were mis-labeled, but still.) Why would the 4s fit and not the 6s? In the same brand? Just give me the measurements. It’s not that hard.
Comment by class factotum — June 12, 2009 @ 9:55 am
I’m not happy about it and I’m not sure it excuses the market’s present failure to address such widespread unmet needs, but the fact is women have a lot more dimensions in which we vary considerably than men do.
Men’s hips are about as narrow as their butts, and they often wear their trousers under any belly, so that doesn’t figure in. Waist and inseam really do pretty much cover it for the vast majority of men. That’s just two measurements. To make me a pair of size 14 trousers that truly fit me and not the three completely differently shaped, taller and/or shorter size 14 women sitting next to me, it seems like you would need to decide on the rise and measure waist accordingly, which means adding a whole important variation within waist, and then add to that: inseam, hip, upper thigh, and possibly also incorporate some kind of sense of the shape of the butt. That’s seriously the minimum, judging by the specific kinds of fit frustration I’ve had just in the last year. And I’m an inbetweenie. I can only imagine it gets even more complicated as you move up to size 22 and 32 (calf probably comes into it at some point, and you start getting sitting/standing variance). There’s a reason knits, stretch, and drapey wide-leg styles are ubiquitous.
I think the answer is going to come from better software in the future. The early feints at it have been pretty limited and unsatisfying but eventually it seems like there should be a way to do mid-priced semiautomated tailoring to measurements.
Comment by Violet — June 12, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Violet, you raise some excellent points. But if I could be sure that the waist and hips would fit, at least then I would have fewer items to try!
And as far as taller/shorter — why why why do designers assume I am either 6″ taller than I am (because that’s the only way I would have this big ass?) or that I want to wear high-heeled shoes with my jeans? I want to wear flat, comfortable shoes with my pants, so please give me something that is the appropriate length. Honestly.
Comment by class factotum — June 12, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
Well to be fair, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having your pants hemmed.
Comment by Plumcake — June 12, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
Here’s what I say to those who prattle on about how, business-wise, it’s impossible to cater to big women by carrying pretty clothes in their sizes: if there are stores in Norway who can do it, and if stores like Marina Rinaldi can do it (and doing it successfully for years now) then there is absolutely no excuse stores like Ann Taylor et all can’t do it.
They just don’t want to. They can hire all the journalists they want to put a spin on their prejudice, but it doesn’t change the fact that the market is there, and plenty of other ingenious companies can thrive in choosing to cater to it.
Seriously: it’s a matter of following a successful business model to gain the custom of a vast and ready market of consumers. If they choose not to capitalize on this just for the sake of holding fast to their sizism, then what we’re about to create with our letter writing is an example of survival of the fittest. Prejudice should be a threat to business survival: it’s about time we turned this into a valuable business school lesson.
Comment by chachaheels — June 12, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
Plumcake, of course there’s nothing wrong with having your pants hemmed. I am just lazy. :)
(Although I did tell my friend who is 5’1″ to quit paying the tailor $30 a pair to hem hers — I would do it for free.)
Comment by class factotum — June 12, 2009 @ 5:38 pm
Studboy, you are calling the blog owner “disrespectful” while bashing her? Pot. Kettle. Black.
Get a life, asshole.
Comment by Sarah — June 14, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
CyndiF, try reading the entire post next time, K?
God, I hate ignorant people.
Comment by Sarah — June 14, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
I normally read first, and then rant; today, I will Rant and then Read.
Hear me, oh designers, who think your art needs to be displayed on thin thin thinny thin women because they make better hangers:
If you want your frigging art on a hanger, then BE A PAINTER AND HANG YOUR GODDAMNED ART ON THE WALL.
I call complete and utter FAIL. You, you inept and incompetent whiny children, are NOT clothing designers, because CLOTHING is FUNCTIONAL. It can and should be beautiful, but if you are unable to competently clothe a human being, you’re no designer, and you’re no professional. Look at the clothing made by the designers who preceded you: Worth, Doucet, Pingat, Callot Soeurs. Look at someone more recent, Mme. Lanvin. These designers made clothing for women of ALL DIFFERENT SIZES. There are not only pictures; there are ACTUAL GARMENTS in museums. These clothes actually are works of art – and a good many of them were made for women well above the current average U.S. size 14. Lucile, Lady Duff Gordon, who INTRODUCED live models and the catwalk, showed her clothes on models, the LIGHTEST of whom was 180 pounds. I, personally, have made breathtaking gowns for plus-sized women, dresses that were dazzling in themselves, and made their wearers look, and feel, like goddesses. While there are many tiny clothes in museums, there are PLENTY of them, down through the centuries, that have been for women above a current U.S. 14. I know, because I’ve SEEN them.
So don’t give ME crap about how clothes need to be worn by thin women in order to hang right. The only time clothes look their best on hangers is when clothes are DESIGNED to look their best on hangers. If you designed your goddamned clothes to look good on WOMEN, then the clothes would look good on women. Thin women, short women, tall women, fat women, busty women, flat women, pear-shaped women, and women anywhere in between.
The fault does not lie with women, their weight, or the shape of their bodies. The fault, dear designers, lies with YOU.
Take your whiny inept selves back to your roots: go to museums, do some research, and take your frigging muslin out of wraps in your workrooms, and do some draping on ALL DIFFERENT SHAPES AND SIZES, AND LEARN YOUR DAMNED CRAFT.
Comment by La BellaDonna — June 18, 2009 @ 6:44 pm