The Frazzled Scribe

So this quote by the president of Abercrombie & Fitch has been going around the internet and recently I put it out there for discussion on Bariatric Foodie’s Facebook Page. One of my Foodies had an interesting response that made me take pause. She said (I am paraphrasing), “Well I can’t shop at Lane Bryant, so how is that any different?”

You ever have a moment where you have a gut feeling you are fairly sure is right but you can’t articulate why? That was such a moment for me. So I took some time to think about it. Went running a few times (the motion bumps together my two remaining brain cells) and here’s what I’ve got.

It is different in a few important ways.

#1: The “Apples & Oranges” argument

To me it’s apples and oranges because of one major reason. The existence of clothing stores like Lane Bryant, Ashley Stewart, etc. are, IN PART, in reaction to the sizing policies of stores like Abercrombie & Fitch. Granted, I’m no plus-sized clothing store historian, but I’d venture to guess that the founding of these specialty stores was to give women a place to shop for clothing in sizes they could not find elsewhere. Also in that mission is, of course, style. Different ones cater to different women. Lane Bryant & Ashley Stewart are very classy/contemporary while, say, Torrid is more for women with a sassier/vampire side.

I’ve noticed lately that stores have sought to become more mainstream but carrying larger sizes. H&M is a good example. I believe their sizing goes up to a XL/18. Sears, JC Penney and other stores have also expanded their offerings of plus sized clothing. All this makes us think that clothing stores are on equal footing. But not so. Many traditional clothing stores that carry plus sizes have wonky sizing structures. I am universally thought to be a size 12. But there are some stores 12’s I can’t fit. Conversely I am too small for a plus-sized store version of a 12. So without universal sizing, I would argue that the NEED for plus-sized clothing stores still exists.

This being the case, I don’t think Lane Bryant et al discriminate against smaller people so much as they fill a gap, a need that persists in the clothing industry: for quality, stylish plus sized clothing.

Conversely, Abercrombie & Fitch exists, in some small way, to DRIVE that need. I know many healthy sized people who can’t wear their clothing. It’s sized small (and now we know it’s probably on purpose) in order to create the illusion of exclusivity. So in my opinion, no, it’s not the same. If (a) all stores carried clothing for all clothing sizes and (b) if clothing sizes went by some universal standard then I would theorize plus sized clothing stores would not need to exist (in theory…there is still the fact that traditional designers don’t seem to have a CLUE how to design for fuller figured people).

#2: The Intent

I can’t wear clothing from Lane Bryant anymore but I CAN wear accessories. And they have cute accessories. There’s an “LB” a block from my house and I often go in and buy bracelets, necklaces, etc.

And nobody tries to stop me. I’ve never gotten sideways looks from the store clerks. Nothing about their advertising says I should not be there (and frankly many of their models are about my height and size).

Most importantly, perhaps, LB, Ashley Stewart, etc. don’t build their branding on a culture of exclusion. So even though their clothing doesn’t fit everyone they also don’t make any assertions that someone wearing their brand that falls outside their target demographic might mess up their brand.

Conversely, that is PRECISELY what the president of A&F is saying. Historically I’ve noticed they are very protective of their brand. I remember a hub-bub about Jersey Shore’s The Situation wearing their clothes. They weren’t too happy about that and said so.

So, the culture of exclusivity is present and active over at A&F. And for the most part that doesn’t bother me. Stores promote images all the time. Yes, some of them are effed up but I think when you deal with anything that requires people using expendable income the first order of business is to sell the fantasy. Once you do that, the consumer will buy the necessary “tools” to make that fantasy their reality.

But, here’s what bugs me…

#3 – The Image

The notion that to be a part of the “in-crowd” you have to be “thin and beautiful.”

Dear Mr. Asshat, I was a cheerleader in high school. I had friends and many people liked me. I had no problem getting a date and was not a wallflower. And all while I was, technically, obese.

The ONLY thing for which I am thankful in this whole scenario is that A&F doesn’t quite have the level of influence it seems to think it has. This story has gotten some outrage but mostly eye-rolls from what I’ve seen.

Because if they DID have such influence over our culture and collective self-image then I’d be very afraid for our society. To define society in that way is not only dangerous but inaccurate. I know plenty of cool kids who aren’t thin. I have no conception of a concrete definition of beautiful but many didn’t have commercial looks. Instead they relied on such crazy things as their personality, wit, intelligence and humor…you know…frivolous things like that.

Conversely, Lane Bryant and Ashley Stewart in particular have almost been bucking the image trend. Both have been criticized in the past for using “smaller models” but both stores are getting better with that. It’s clear to me in their advertising that the models they use could actually wear the clothes straight off the rack, but they’ve also recognized that there are women who shop there that are in the lower spectrum of their size range and, dammit, they have needs too! I know I personally would feel equally intimidated as a size 12 woman going into a store that magnifies size 18 women as I am about being a size 12 person going into a store that magnifies size 6’s.

In the end, I just want to go into a store and know that whatever I choose to buy, it’s ok.

So, those are my thoughts. The president of Abercrombie & Fitch is an ass. And insofar as he sets the tone for the culture of that particular store, I find the A&F brand to be divisive, not exclusive. Immature, not forward thinking. I never really liked their clothes so to me a boycott wouldn’t make much impact.

BUT I will say that we need to think critically about these issues. How do they affect our sons and daughters? Our nieces, nephews, cousins, sisters and brothers? Are we supporting brands that affirm them or condemn them to some second-class citizen status?

For my part, I’m raising two “bigger than the average” girls and they are gorgeous. I talked to them about this and they summed it up well by saying, “It’s ok when clothing stores don’t sell your size but it’s not ok to say that your size is wrong.”

Truer words have never been spoken.