Project Runway
Tonight they had to design clothes for "the everyday woman." I stopped by TWoP to read the episode thread and thought I'd just quote this one, with which I agree completely:
"All the designers seemed so put off that these women were heavy. Like, we're impossible to design for. Look, I'm a 16-18, and you know what? Curves are fun to fit! We have huge, lucious boobs! We have nice legs! We have TASTE! We don't all need to be hidden! Vincent's sister would have looked gorgeous in a tailored-at-the-waist, low-cut jacket. Give these women shape! There is nothing more frustrating than shopping in a plus-size market, because the clothes are tragic. Women of size are stylish and know how to wear their clothes. Just because you bring something in toward the body doesn't mean it's going to be eaten by fat rolls. This neanderthal way of thinking is frustrating and pathetic and most designers are missing out on making a crapload of money on women they find hideous."
Thanks, boolise! I got kind of annoyed when the designers seemed to choose models from thinnest to fattest, and then again when Michael Kors said that plus-sized shapes need "drapes" in the fabric. Step away from the muu-muus, people. And I mean everyone.
"All the designers seemed so put off that these women were heavy. Like, we're impossible to design for. Look, I'm a 16-18, and you know what? Curves are fun to fit! We have huge, lucious boobs! We have nice legs! We have TASTE! We don't all need to be hidden! Vincent's sister would have looked gorgeous in a tailored-at-the-waist, low-cut jacket. Give these women shape! There is nothing more frustrating than shopping in a plus-size market, because the clothes are tragic. Women of size are stylish and know how to wear their clothes. Just because you bring something in toward the body doesn't mean it's going to be eaten by fat rolls. This neanderthal way of thinking is frustrating and pathetic and most designers are missing out on making a crapload of money on women they find hideous."
Thanks, boolise! I got kind of annoyed when the designers seemed to choose models from thinnest to fattest, and then again when Michael Kors said that plus-sized shapes need "drapes" in the fabric. Step away from the muu-muus, people. And I mean everyone.
posted by mo pie at 11:32 PM
33 Comments:
I haven't seen this episode yet since I don't have cable and have to procure the episodes by other means. But I can't really fault the designers for picking the thinner women first. This is a high stakes competition and if your experience is in fitting thinner women, it makes sense to pick a thinner model. Why try and learn the tricks to fitting a plus-sized woman in one day if you don't have to?
Also, while I agree that curves and boobs are sexy and good, I recently started to learn how to sew and I can tell you curves and boobs are not fun to fit. Honestly, it would be a lot easier to make nice fitting clothes if I were a simple shape like a cylinder or a square. Just getting a T-shirt pattern to fit right on me without weird bulges or weird hanging under the arms has been very tricky. I've begun to understand why designers might prefer to design for women who look like sticks because it's a lot easier to fit a stick!
Still, I'm glad they did a plus-sized challenge and by making the models family members I bet it cut down significantly on any fat-bashing that might have occurred otherwise.
"Most designers are missing out on making a crapload of money."
This is the key assertion, and it is completely false. There is no "crapload of money" to be made in plus size fashion. If there were, the industry would be chasing after it. Designers would have no say in the matter: for the most part they have little power in the garment industry.
There is a vocal minority of extroverted plus size women who want tight-fitting, fashionable clothing, but it is not a big market, and these women do not represent most plus size women.
And there is no "plus size" range of sizes anyway. Once most of the body is composed of fat, standard sizing goes out the window. You'd need to make a dozen different blocks to account for all the ways fat gets distributed. For thinner people, you can get away with just a few, say, a regular, a muscular, and a petite.
In the end, each line created from a single plus size block and its graded sizes represents a tiny market, and there's no money to be made.
Ugh. I didn't get to see the first half of the episode, but did anyone catch how Jeffrey's monstrosity was excused as "miscommunication"? It was a GIANT BLACK MUU MUU! I just don't see how anyone could *accidentally* communicate that they wanted a shapeless piece of black fabric draped over them with little "artistic" touches near the collar.
I'm getting sick and tired of him. Angela's mom could have looked *so* much better.
He just doesn't have the talent, no matter how much B.S. he spews.
Apparently, everyone else in the world is an amateur, and they just can't *see* how awesome his clothes are. I mean, omg, they'd look so great on a skinny model, right?
Pathetic.
I have to agree with Heather. You're not making much sense, Mark. Fat is not some kind of disfiguring tumor that grows differently on every "fatty" it latches on to. Plus sizes very well *could* be made regular, muscular, petit. You know why? Because regardless, everyone is shaped differently. Not *monstrously* different, like you described, just different.
Does that mean I agree those categories are going to work and make anyone really happy? No. Not at all. Even for the skinniest of people, those "regular", "muscular", and "petit" sizes are broad generalizations.
If only women's designers would size clothing like males'--as in, by actual measurements.
I get the feeling that both thin and fat would enjoy fabulous fitting clothes when that day comes.
But that really won't happen anytime soon.
Poo.
While I disagree with Mark that plus size women wanting nice clothing are a minority, I do have to grant him the sizing issue. I've observed women of the same size who carry their weight in their breasts, or their backs, or their rears, or their thighs, or their waists, or random combinations of the above. Any garment trying to fit all those simultaneously is going to be pretty much shapeless. Plus size clothing is shapeless because the manufacturers have to accomodate a lot of different shapes with the same piece of clothing.
The obvious solution is to learn to do alterations or find someone who does alterations.
Deirdre
Alterations, and/or buy Marina Rinaldi's and Elena Miro's clothes.
I'd never heard of Miro until I saw her collection on the "Too Fat for Fashion" blog Mo talked about in the post above this one.
Even if you're not rolling in it, you can find some Marina Rinaldi at Loehmanns (sshhh), and even if you don't like to wear everything to the knee (I don't), you can pair Miro's fabulous jackets with your own tops and pants.
Link didn't show up for some reason
Hiya. I just found this blog a few weeks ago, and I think it's all brilliant. I've finally worked up the guts to comment.
When the ladies were all different sizes, I knew they were gonna pick the plus-sized ones last. Just like high school gym class. I felt insulted for them.
And snackiepoo--I totally agree. Were I Angela, I would have been flipping shit if someone were to treat my mother so rudely! Who treats a mom like that? Especially since it all boils down to Jeffrey's inability to work w/ size, which makes him a BAD designer in my eyes. I don't care how many drugs he's NOT on anymore. He's failing.
Mark, I'd like to know why you think you are such an expert in plus size fashion.
IMO, large women have been socialized to believe that they are not WORTH good clothes. Partly because the options given to us are ugly and poorly made.
This episode could have been SUCH a wonderful example of how plus size women can and deserve to look stylish. Instead, it was an episode filled with fatism and degrading comments. I really think PR should have had SOMEONE say at the end of the episode "gee, maybe schools should teach designers how to make fashionable clothes for all body types."
Yikes! What did I say?
Let me rephrase: The market will supply anything for which there is a demand, unless there is some restraining force, such as government regulation.
"Designers' disgust for fat people" is not a restraining force. Designers don't own or manage the garment companies. Professional managers do, whose only goal is to make money.
If there appears to be an insufficient supply of plus size clothing, the only explanation is that there is no demand for it.
Market segmentation is probably the ultimate reason. Once you break down the market into style, fit, price, and sizes, the resulting segments for plus sizes are small, so there is little money to be made.
Any other explanation veers into conspiracy theory territory.
I haven't seen this programme (as I'm in the UK) but I'd absolutely agree with Catherine. Any sample of women of a particular size will vary a lot in build.
I'm an hourglass shape. I have worn three or four different sizes in my life, and whatever size I was, I've had trouble finding certain clothes. Jeans that fit my hips but aren't too big in the waist. Shirts that fit my chest without being too baggy in the shoulders and at the waist. I'm sure everyone has equivalent difficult garments.
The difference is, when I was a UK size 16-18, there was just so much less to choose from. Lots of styles stop at 14. And you can't go naked, so after the seventh trying-on session I'd buy something and go home, even if it wasn't what I really wanted - and how is a market researcher going to know I don't love it? I bought it. And size 18 is hardly unusual (around US 14). I can only guess how difficult it must be further up the size range.
Now I'm a UK 14 in most things, it's just SO much easier to find flattering clothes, not because my body is much different - it isn't, just slightly smaller all over. I don't think there's any visible difference naked, so it's not that I've become a less complex shape. I've tried making my own clothes and it's just as difficult...
I didn't lose weight primarily so I could buy cute clothes but it's hard to see it as anything but a bonus.
On the issue of whether or not there is demand for fashionable clothing at larger sizes, I have less faith in the ability of the market to respond to demand than does Mark. This is partly because there is not one single market for clothing - there are several, sometimes overlapping markets. For example, I refer you to the September issue of the UK edition of ELLE magazine which has an article on the inconsistency of sizing in UK shops. The writer notes that stores cut their clothes to suit their typical or desired client base. As a result, stores that aim to sell most of their clothes to teenagers tend to have smaller sizing than those which sell more to the 30+ market (I'm over 40 myself), and European sizing tends to be smaller than UK, which is in turn smaller than American.
There may be a more glamourous image for a shop in carrying only the smaller range of sizes. I have noticed that a few more shops in the UK have started carrying size 16s, but they have hardly advertised the fact (and often these are only available in a smaller range of styles). So the problem for retailers may be a perception, hopefully mistaken, that if they are seen as catering to larger women, that they will lose cachet with their younger market, or possibly with the fashion press.
My conclusion, after this rambling entry, for which my apologies, is that the market does respond to demand, and may be slowly changing to give more choice at the smaller end of large (UK 16-18), but this is a slow and complex process. Not a conspiracy, but a market that, like most markets, doesn't behave as rationally as economic theorists would have us believe.
Curves are fun to fit, but curves are challenging to fit, particularly with woven fabrics. I sew quite a bit and I've been both larger and leaner, but always quite chesty and it can be a big challenge to create garmets that fit well over a large chest without making my waist look like a sack. Not that it can't be done (heavyweight knits are you bestest friend) but it is more work than fitting a stick insect.
I do have to say though that I LOVED Uli's design. I think it was gracious and beautiful and had great flow and drape. I also love Kayne for not being intimidated by designing for a larger figure.
As someone who sews all the time and has been for years:
The first thing sewing teaches you is to stop feeling bad about not fitting standardized sizes, because everyone really IS uniquely shaped.
That being said, there are ways to create cute, fitted clothing for plus sizes. I'm sure you all have your rules of thumb for what to look for, but mine are: shirts with stretch (3/4 sleeves, V-necks); A-line knee-length skirts; boot cut pants.
It's not THAT hard, esp. when you add stretch into the mix. It IS hard when you're trying to fit a non-stretch/non-woven, given that we do (plus size and non-plus) carry our weight (and bones!) in different places.
The first thing designers could do would be to grade patterns from plus-size blocks; designers ususally draft say a size 6 with a B cup, then just keep grading that up. Hence why you get the plus size top that fits your bust, but has linebacker shoulders (who gains weight in the shoulder??!!).
I'm with Mark, for both his posts---and I used to be overweight. The garment industry wasn't invented last week. Clothing (like anything else) is sold because it's bought, not vice versa. You and I, ladies, are The Market.
You'd be surprised how much is already available if you know what clothing lines suit you. If you don't know what your best lines are, visit the public library. Then, your choices are either 1) buy the kinds of garments shown on "Too Fat for Fashion" or other sites and shops you admire (you are the market), or 2) sew your own or have them made.
Just took another look at that "Too Fat for Fashion" site. The lines of most of those garments have been "in" for at least 45 years. They're classic. And some of those clothes are straight out of the nightwear sections of pattern books.
I once made a wrap dress from a robe pattern (street length, mauve---wouldn't wear that colour in public today), with a white shawl collar and cuffs. Wore it to a wedding, to rave reviews. With a change of colours, it's a line I would still wear. I weighed about 170 at the time (between sizes 16 and 18, Canadian) but if you are a plus size, you could wear it, if that line suited you.
midatlantic is exactly right about the forces constraining the market for plus-sized clothes--I can't agree with you more, and you have hit on exactly the reason why Mark's comment was so misguided. Designers and retailers fear that catering to plus-sizes will cause them to lose their cachet with the slender, because fat=unfashionable. This also explains a number of other market anomalies, like the reason why so many stores maintain separate retail space at extra cost just to "separate out" the women's sizes from the misses sizes. It IS all about money, but the money we're talking about is the money they make by maintaining their image. It's not a simple supply-demand equation.
Regarding the Econ 101 argument -- I agree, Ann Taylor (for instance) doesn't carry sizes 16+ because they are afraid they will lose their other customers if they lose the thin-only cachet. They know there is money to be made from plus sizes, but they fear that there is also money to be lost. (Like, older TV viewers have more money to spend than 18- to 24-year-olds, but advertisers chase the young ones, because they want their products to be seen as young. Markets do not actually act rationally, much of the time.)
The other thing that constrains the market from responding is, big people have to wear something, and when all they can find is appliqueed tentlike monstrosities and mutant conjoined sweatersets, and when they resentfully buy those things because it's that or go to work naked, the market interprets this as: "We love Bedazzlery crap! More of that, please!" The Econ 101 theory only works if there are cute clothes and ugly clothes equally available, and people opt for the ugly ones.
Companies are already making fistfuls of money on plus-size clothes. Lane Bryant is not in the business of charity, you know? People are constantly citing statistics about how many Americans are overweight or obese. So yes, as a matter of fact, there is a lot of money to be made from plus-sized clothes that are actually attractive. Torrid is making huge money, in the teenager market, and there are more overweight adults than teens.
And, of course, everyone else is right too, that thinner women are not all the same shape either, and retailers manage somehow to make attractive clothes for our various shapes.
Ms. Potter, you said what I was trying to say, only with greater eloquence and clarity.
Wonderful post! I just wanted to let you know that I also run a plus-size fashion blog, and have added you in my links. Good job!
The problem I see with the "designers fear they will lose their cachet" argument is that --
(1) They could come up with another label for the plus line, or
(2) Industry veterans could quit their jobs at de-cachet-phobic companies and start new companies to tap into that "cr@pload of money," or
(3) Cachet-tone-deaf companies could just do it, since there is no intellectual property protection for fashion design, and they could just get a pattern maker and grader to knock off whatever they want based on a plus size block.
A similar argument is made in the insurance industry sometimes: Why don't they provide coverage for [fill in the blank]. Nowadays most insurance tasks, like most garment industry tasks, can be outsourced, from policy design and regulatory paperwork, to underwriting, to call centers. There are many boutique insurance companies that consist of just a handful of industry veterans who concentrate on marketing strategy. If there is a market for an insurance product, you can be sure it will be filled quickly, as long as regulatory problems don't get in the way. In the garment industry, there are no regulatory issues.
Holy Mary, Mother of God. I finally clicked on a photo of Darlene, the MomModel from the Project Runway challenge whose designer found designing for her "harder than quitting heroin."
I almost passed out. I figured from the posts I'd read at TWoP that she could fill the better part of a football field by herself, and she looks ... ordinary. The sort of person who'd be next to you on the bus, or in line at the Post Office, and be completely unobtrusive. I have no respect for the designers who couldn't handle that challenge. At a self-taught 14, I managed to make a well-fitting, flattering tunic (a silver-grey slubbed satin, with a fabulous jacquard trim) for a man who had a 60" waistline. Yes, that was sixty-inch waistline. I've also made a wedding dress for my statuesque SIL (5'8" with some rockin' curves) that had my brothers, her brothers-in-law, preening and strutting at the reception site because her dress became her so well (white satin, silver embroidered organza - MILES of it) (as opposed, in their opinion, to every other bride present).
And that's not counting the wedding dress I made for the size 24 bride that made her look majestic, gorgeous and sexy (white velvet, green and gold brocade, beaded Alencon lace). It really isn't impossible.
Of course, you have to care about what you're doing. Taking some pride in your work helps, too.
And FWIW, I understand that this past year, it's Torrid's profits this past year that made up for a drop in the profits of Hot Topic, its parent company.
La BellaDonna - I'm willing to cut the designers a little more slack because while it's awesome that you are able to make great fitting clothes for fat people, I'm betting you didn't do it in one day for someone you'd never met before without using any pattern books. If the designers had a week or two to work on this project, were able to reference patterns and proper size grading for plus-sized people, or if they had plus-sized dress forms to work with, they would have had less reason to bitch. I'm sure some of the whining was based in fat-phobia, but there were also some legitimate reasons that designing for a larger person would be more difficult in these specific circumstances. Also since not everyone was designing for a larger person, there might have been some resentment over the uneven footing, especially since $100,000 is at stake.
The Gap creates jeans (up to Misses' size 16 on a good day) in three cuts, at least last time I stopped in there. So they are willing to market their product in three "body type" variations to what, maybe half of the American population? (That's given what I've read recently that indicates that 30-some-odd percent of Americans are obese, and another 30-some-odd percent are overweight, and assuming that some of the overweight people can fit into the higher end of the Misses size range.)
What makes anyone think that there isn't money to be made in plus-sized clothing, even if they do need to break up the sizing by body type? Even assuming that different stores would target different tastes, age groups, and budgets, there is still plenty of money to be made on that other half of Americans who need larger sizes.
It just shows, really, that the market forces are not all supply-and-demand driven... there are also cultural attitudes and decades-old assumptions to contend with. And, as others have said, it's not as though everyone can simply refuse to buy clothes at all, and vote entirely with our pocketbook. Even people who know how to sew well enough to make their own clothes don't have time to make everydamnthing they wear.
I'm afraid I can't see anything in Mark's 3rd post, any more than in his first two posts, with which to disagree. I think what irritates your other guests most, Mo, is that he appears to make his statements without emotion.
Linda,
Yes, you're right. My definition of demand is limited to demand that is manifested in money changing hands, wallets being opened at the register.
There may be a lot of "repressed demand," people who really want to buy different styles of clothes than they do, but who just don't know it yet -- but that gets into a psychological area I really know nothing about.
But in the end, It's unfair to blame the garment industry for not supplying clothes to meet a repressed demand, since by definition such clothes would go unsold.
I also think it's unreasonable to expect individual garment industry companies to underwrite expensive marketing, advertising, and counseling programs in a futile attempt to change the tastes of women who insist on "incorrectly" buying unstylish clothes because of their "training."
You're right that retailers may be beginning to supply more plus sized clothes, because the market is growing. As America gets fatter and fatter, the demand problem will solve itself. Within a couple of decades, it may be the thin who cannot find clothes that fit--it's already getting hard to find such clothes at rural Wal-Marts. As obesity works its way up the socioeconomic ladder from the lower income levels where the obesity rate is currently highest, more expensive lines of clothes will also start to skew towards the larger side.
On the Econ 101 supply-and-demand threatd...I'd like to add that there are many areas in which societal taboo trumps a potentially lucrative market in dictating industry policy. This is perhaps analogous to the peacock's tail, or other examples of sexual evolution: common sense dictates that a long, showy, heavy tail is an obstacle to survival (which is why the peacock loses it out of the breeding season) but common sense took a long time to realize that in fact that tail's appeal to lustful peahens was a sexual advantage in passing on peacock DNA that outweighed even the chance of a predator grabbing the peacock by that tail. Fashion, and industries dictated by fashion, operate in something of the same fashion: that is, if a social taboo is sufficiently pervasive, companies sometimes do things that actually threaten their profits rather than enhance them, even though companies in theory exist to make profits. Think of two-thirds of all health insurance that covers prenatal care (and Viagra, for that matter) but not birth control: is that a profit-based decision, or is it about the perceptions of birth control as "not necessary" which still dominate society? Erections are necessary, and therefore generally covered, even though covering it costs insurers money; birth control, even though funding it could well save insurance carriers money, is "optional." Because it's for women? Because it enables women to better control their lives? Because everybody "ought" to have babies? Take your pick, but all of these attitudes probably contribute to a policy which cuts into profits rather than enhancing them, which common sense dictates that no company should reasonably do, but which companies do pretty regularly nonetheless. Wal-Mart could make more money selling morning-after pills, and nobody ever accused Wal-Mart of not liking those benjamins enough; but the anti-birth-control ideology is strong enough that they still refused to do it. Wal-Mart, for God's sake, which has no qualms about the most appalling employee abuses and sweatshop labor, has a "moral" problem with the morning- after pill? Presumably they thought the backlash of agreeing to carry it would counter the profits of selling it, and who knows, maybe they're right. Because ideology is stronger than logic, and in some cases stronger even than greed.
So: fashion. Yes, the stigma against weight in women IS so powerful that many companies don't even try to tap that market, even though the news is saturated with stories about how much fatter we're all getting (and will, presumably, need some new clothes to accommmodate our expanding asse...ts.) Susan Faludi documents a similar ideologically-based fashion swing in Backlash, a book which many people dismiss because it's unabashedly feminist but which, in fact, has better references than many a less popular scholarly document. She points out the uber-feminine fashion trends which dominated the 1980's and gave excellent documentation for the assertion that this was during the same period in which women really, really wanted plain, functional business suits like men can find everywhere from Goodwill on up. It wasn't remotely about the target audience's demand; it was about popular societal belief that women had gone "too far" and should be "more feminine," whether they wanted to or not.
This happens. Maybe common sense says it shouldn't, but it does. Ideology affects business, industry, and everything we do every day. People can, and will, keep on denying this, but, frankly, that says more about the power of the ideology than the merit of the argument.
I run a popular fashion site for plus size women (http://www.beautypluspower.com) and interact with a lot of the major and minor designers and retailers in the plus market.
I don't agree with Mark's statement: "There is no "crapload of money" to be made in plus size fashion. If there were, the industry would be chasing after it."
There are many complicated issues as to why there isn't more plus size clothing, and more fashionable plus clothing available.
Here are a few:
1)Say there was a hole in the market for stereos. If someone opened up a stereo store, it would do well, right? But what if the person opening up the store didn't know anything about stereos and how to choose the right ones to stock. If the store went out of business, would it mean that no one wanted stereos? No, it would mean that they didn't want the stereos that store had.
My point: Retailers and designers often don't understand the plus customer, so they don't know how to design the things they want, therefore their lines aren't always successful. H&M's plus line was a disaster. It was ugly, shapeless and unfashionable - totally different than their straight size clothes, and it didn't sell well.
H&M can say, even quoting their financials, that there was no plus customer for their clothing. Not true. Savvy customers just didn't want to buy ugly plus size clothes at H&M anymore than they would from any other store.
2)The most readily available choices in plus size clothing are all at mall level prices. Lane Bryant, Torrid, Fashion Bug, Avenue etc. If that's all you can shop in usually, it becomes your frame of reference as to how much you should pay for clothing. So when a designer asks you to pay 2-3 times more than that, it seems high to the average buyer, even though it's what a straight size customer would be used to spending.
3)Brand recognition:
People tend to spend the most money on clothes from labels they recognize, and even more money on brands with prestige. We are sorely lacking those in our market. From tracking stats on my site I am starting to see that certain brands, like Kiyonna, Svoboda and Igigi are building recognition online that seems to be benefiting them quite well in sales. But a brand new company doesn't have that buzz.
4)Retail stores: Other than chains, the boutiques for plus tend to target a 35 and up shopper. So younger, hipper brands don't sell as well in those stores because young customers don't shop there. Besides, plus size stores are what we call "destination" stores, they don't attract the casual shopper walking by, people make plans to go visit them. So if people don't know they exist, and they aren't in a mall, its hard to get people there.
I could go on like this forever. But basically, these challenges will eventually be overcome, its just going to take time. My business advisor once said (warning: somewhat controversial) to study the history of marketing to gay people in America. He said there was a time that they were so stigmatized that no one would ever imagine targeting them as a customer. But now they are a huge market. There are media companies that exist solely to help market products and services to the gay community - everything from cruises to clothing to nightlife and more - from niche to super mainstream brands. He said he wouldn't be surprised if it took greater acceptance of plus size people socially to lead to changes in the plus size clothing market. I realize the comparison isn't exact, and I don't intend to create a debate with his comments, but I found them very thought provoking.
I'm boolise, who posted that little nugget on TWoP. Thanks for linking to it, mo pie. I only just came across your site, and it's thoughtful and smart.
"Let me rephrase: The market will supply anything for which there is a demand, unless there is some restraining force, such as government regulation."
Stigma is a restraining force, and despite Mark's opinion, lack of desire is a restraining force. The fact is, designers can adapt and they're choosing not to when it comes to plus-sizes. In large and small ways, they always have when it comes to other demands on fashion: The popular shapes of clothes change year to year (high-waisted vs. low-rise), the trends in modeling change (heroin chic vs. chestier and tall) and the popular styles change clothing proportions. Designers adapt to style, so why can't they adapt to size? You learned how to make a shirt for a flat-chested woman; find a way to learn how to make a shirt for a busty one. All fashion starts somewhere, and all fashion evolves. Even within plus-size styling, proportions have changed. The trend at Lane Bryant now is for jackets to be made for larger women with flat stomachs and huge boobs, and for the first time in my life, I can't fill the chest of a jacket. And I'm a 38D. Oy!
Bear in mind, in the "Runway" episode, Robert was overwhelmed by "this body," saying he didn't understand the proportions. Robert's day job is a clothing designer for Barbie — as in Barbie dolls — whose proportions do not exist in nature. To him, that was still preferable to dressing Vincent's sister.
I can buy the argument that the "PR" designers are unfamiliar with plus-size bodies and may not be able to learn how to tailor a quality garment in a day, but they looked at these women like they were fish, and moreover, that it was a burden and not a fun challenge. The clothes they made were just ugly. No personality at all. They didn't have to be skimpy and if the women didn't want to show skin, fine, but there are so many options and not one was entertained.
I don't need tight clothes. I shouldn't wear them. But I should be able to find beautiful, stylish clothes that skim my curves without being too snug and that flatter my assets. It's nearly impossible for me to find well-made clothes in stores. By the same token, it's just as hard for me to find a pair of pants that fit well as it is for my size-6 best friend to find good pants, so the whole "regular-sized women can be segmented into three categories" argument is bollocks. Women are created differently, no matter what size they are. But to say that there's no market for well-made plus-size clothes is bullshit. Fact is, high-end designers don't want to see their clothes on figures they find unattractive. Period.
Everybody who has responded here has done a far better job than I have, so I'll leave it up to all of you. (I've also been at work for 13 hours and counting and feel like I'm writing in Latin. And I don't speak Latin.) But ultimately, this whole challenge was treated as nearly impossible and mostly undesirable, when, in reality, it could have been a really fabulous way of showing that good design can flatter anybody. It was a wasted opportunity and it's infuriating that, while there has been some progress in plus-size fashion, improvement is going to continue to move so damn slowly.
I agree with much of what the other posters here have said. I am an overweight woman, I would like to wear attractive clothes, and I have been reading this site since Mo started it. I generally think the quality of discussion here is very good and I love reading what others have to say, even if I rarely comment. However, I just want to say that I do not find Mark's posts to be offensive, condescending, or hateful in any way. I may not agree with his reasoning, but it is unfair to pigeonhole him as hating fat women just because he happens to express a theory -- just a theory, mind you -- that we may not agree with, or that may even be wrong. One of the things I love about reading this site and these comments is that they are frequently helpful, inspiring, educational...but now Linda is just engaging in useless ad hominem attacks. Go back and compare the tone of her comments with Mark's, and decide who is being polite and respectful. There is no need to applaud her for laying a "smackdown" on him -- what, exactly did he say that was so wrong?
And by the way, my name is Christina, didn't want to leave it anonymous, my mistake!
Hey Christina! Thanks for weighing in on this. I'm really glad Mark's been coming back to discuss his point of view, because he's made some very thought-provoking points.
Hi,I'm new to this blog. I just want to say that I did go to "fashion school" and this whole inspiration- where is this fabulous woman going- to the fantasy land- on the runway- bubble is the way they teach you. I've always wanted to relate fashion to the every day woman. I'm putting together a line and I need your help, ladies. I need to round off my measuring charts, and I could use your stats (bust, bra size, waist, hips, height, age and whatever else you want to include. Pics are optional so I can see the shape of your body- you can cut off the top/ head, I'm not interested in it). If you're tired of what's out there on the market,and you're in the NY/ NJ area (I know most on this blog are from the west coast, right, but if you happen to be on this side of the country) let's meet and talk. I'll take a few measurements, I'll even come to you! Talk to me, tell me what you want, be my inspiration, help me make a good product for you.
Drop me a line at AskElizabeth@gmail.com
Thank you very much- and I hope the writer of this blogger won't be mad at me for crashing and giving my two cents.
Talk to you soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home