# Major Retailers Removing Plus-Sized Clothing



## ksandru (Jun 1, 2009)

Today, I heard a so-called "teaser" story to be featured at 5 pm today on WCBSTV News (Channel 2 in NY) that some major retailers will no longer be selling plus-sized clothing..WTF????!!!! It is time for us, time for NAAFA and other Size Acceptance organizations to start getting more vocal. This attack on the plus-sized community has gotten way too far, IMHO!!! Would we have a case with the ACLU? Anyone know any size-acceptance attorneys willing to take this on? What are your thoughts?!


----------



## CamileL (Jun 1, 2009)

I would need to know more details. Wouldn't want to judge based on the headline alone and find out that the actual story isn't what the headline implies (it's happened before).


----------



## ashmamma84 (Jun 1, 2009)

CamileL said:


> I would need to know more details. Wouldn't want to judge based on the headline alone and find out that the actual story isn't what the headline implies (it's happened before).



Yeah, feeling the same way.


----------



## MisterGuy (Jun 1, 2009)

Lol @ calling the ACLU about retailers deciding to pull plus sizes. Retailers can sell whatever they want. Target is not legally obligated to sell anything.


----------



## Power_Metal_Kitsune (Jun 1, 2009)

Stores are not legally obliged to sell anything they don't want to sell. I'm a power metal fan and the only stores that carry music in my area largely do not carry the muisic I listen to, but you don't see me trying to get a "power-metal-acceptance-friendly" attorney to make the stores sell the CDS I want, as no attorney in their right mind would take a case like that nor would they take this one. Besides, in that vein, if you could sue because a store didn't carry what you wanted, how many thin women could sue stores such as Cato's, Lane Bryant and Catherine's? Hell, I could sue Wal-Mart for not carrying HammerFall t-shirts under this logic. Get a grip, folks. If you don't like what the store is selling, don't shop there, you know?


----------



## MisterGuy (Jun 1, 2009)

Also, if this is true, it probably means plus-size stuff isn't selling very well. Big retailers don't just capriciously or punitively decide not to sell things. They stop selling them if they're not making money, which might mean more business is going to online retailers like Avenue and Torrid.


----------



## rainyday (Jun 1, 2009)

ksandru said:


> It is time for us, time for NAAFA and other Size Acceptance organizations to start getting more vocal. This attack on the plus-sized community has gotten way too far, IMHO!!! Would we have a case with the ACLU? Anyone know any size-acceptance attorneys willing to take this on? What are your thoughts?!


When the fashion titans are bailed out and join the ranks of other state-run industries in our new centrally planned economy, maybe we can lobby Obama to only pick fat friendly CEOs who'll ensure the lines continue?


----------



## Power_Metal_Kitsune (Jun 1, 2009)

that the economy is forcing people to lose weight through not buying junk food and candy that leaves you hungry only 1-2 hours after you eat it, therefore leading people to think more frugally, buying nutrititious, filling food with the little money they have so that they don't snack down every cent they have, therefore remvoing extra calories from their diet, slimming them down. That's what has happened to me.


----------



## Power_Metal_Kitsune (Jun 1, 2009)

No, I don't think that will happen anymore than stores getting "power metal-friendly CEO's". At least there are stores that sell clothing for you BBWs. We power metal lovers have to shop in 7-10 different stores (some online) just to get anything. Just do what we do, get off your heinies and look around, don't expect the world to care or you'll feel as disappointed the first time I learned that you can't get a Children Of Bodom chainwallet at Hot Topic or the first time I learned that Wal-Mart (thatgirl08's favorite store haha) doesn't carry HammerFall CD's. It is what it is.


----------



## rainyday (Jun 1, 2009)

:blink: ..............


----------



## ksandru (Jun 1, 2009)

Retail stores claim that because it takes 10% more fabric and in manufacturing plus size clothing, and that sales are down 8% in their stores (Bloomingdales, Ann Taylor and others) they will carry them online but not within the stores. Interestingly enough, a representative of the online plus size outlet OneStopPlus.com and a buyer from Jessica London said that sales for plus & supersizes are actually up 52% . It says to me that they just don't want large & supersized women to buy clothing in their stores, but yet they want our business on their websites?! does that make ANY sense? The problem in our community is that we are not a vocal majority & we just sit & take it, hoping not to draw attention to ourselves. And with all due respect, I don't see anything in the piece where they are reducing their clothing racks for big and tall men!




MisterGuy said:


> Also, if this is true, it probably means plus-size stuff isn't selling very well. Big retailers don't just capriciously or punitively decide not to sell things. They stop selling them if they're not making money, which might mean more business is going to online retailers like Avenue and Torrid.


----------



## MisterGuy (Jun 1, 2009)

It makes sense if they don't want to be associated with fat women, and think they can make the same money through online sales. I'm not saying it's nice, but it's their prerogative. The recourse of the fat community to something like this would have to be protests or boycotts, not lawsuits, as there's not a lawyer in the country that would touch something like this with a ten foot pole.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 1, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> It makes sense if they don't want to be associated with fat women, and think they can make the same money through online sales. I'm not saying it's nice, but it's their prerogative. The recourse of the fat community to something like this would have to be protests or boycotts, not lawsuits, as there's not a lawyer in the country that would touch something like this with a ten foot pole.



I frankly don't believe this.

Retailers would sell to Nazis if there was a niche for them, and margin for a healthy profit. 

If some retailers are yanking their plus-size line of clothing, it is because they aren't meeting their margins. Certainly, in a country where more than 50% of women are at least a size 14, it has nothing to do with not wanting teh fatties in their stores.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 1, 2009)

http://wcbstv.com/women/plus.size.clothes.2.1027166.html


People aren't buying. That happens with a lot of stuff, especially these days.


----------



## MisterGuy (Jun 1, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I frankly don't believe this.
> 
> Retailers would sell to Nazis if there was a niche for them, and margin for a healthy profit.
> 
> If some retailers are yanking their plus-size line of clothing, it is because they aren't meeting their margins. Certainly, in a country where more than 50% of women are at least a size 14, it has nothing to do with not wanting teh fatties in their stores.





> Also, if this is true, it probably means plus-size stuff isn't selling very well. Big retailers don't just capriciously or punitively decide not to sell things. They stop selling them if they're not making money, which might mean more business is going to online retailers like Avenue and Torrid.



I agee that it's purely economic. That's what I was saying earlier in the thread.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 1, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> I agee that it's purely economic. That's what I was saying earlier in the thread.



Sorry, MG. I was actually agreeing with your assessment, but can see where it appears that I was disagreeing with you (I should have quoted the person before you).


----------



## 1300 Class (Jun 1, 2009)

> It is time for us, time for NAAFA and other Size Acceptance organizations to start getting more vocal. This attack on the plus-sized community has gotten way too far, IMHO!!! Would we have a case with the ACLU? Anyone know any size-acceptance attorneys willing to take this on? What are your thoughts?!


My only response to this would be: Really, is this a joke?*

Stores can sell whatever they want as long as it does not contrivene local, state or federal laws. Simply not selling something is not a crime or civil case. Quite frankly, if the movement wants to get serious and look serious, then it needs to avoid this sort of reaction to events. Its like saying that everyone should just where Snuggies everwhere. Their both equally daft responces. 

*Like in that Simpsons Episode where Homer goes into space, at the NASA press conference when the head of NASA is asked by the reporters.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Jun 1, 2009)

ksandru said:


> Retail stores claim ... that sales are down 8% in their stores (Bloomingdales, Ann Taylor and others) they will carry them online but not within the stores. Interestingly enough, a representative of the online plus size outlet OneStopPlus.com and a buyer from Jessica London said that sales for plus & supersizes are actually up 52% . It says to me that they just don't want large & supersized women to buy clothing in their stores, but yet they want our business on their websites?!



It suggests to me that they've noticed a lot of their plus-size clothing is bought online. Considering how limited the selections of plus-size clothing are in many shops, many customers may find it easier, faster, and less frustrating to shop by computer or mail order. I agree with Tracijo: all the companies care about is getting as much money as possible. And one way to do this is to notice what sells best in the stores, what sells best online, and adjust their offerings to take advantage of this.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 1, 2009)

"Bloomingdales, Ann Taylor"


Two stores that don't make me think plus sized to begin with. I think that's part of it. And they cater to very specific size ranges so they're not really all that accessible to the average chubber. I go where I KNOW i'll fit into the clothes, not where I MIGHT fit into something if it's cut bigger etc.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 1, 2009)

Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> Stores are not legally obliged to sell anything they don't want to sell. I'm a power metal fan and the only stores that carry music in my area largely do not carry the muisic I listen to, but you don't see me trying to get a "power-metal-acceptance-friendly" attorney to make the stores sell the CDS I want, as no attorney in their right mind would take a case like that nor would they take this one. Besides, in that vein, if you could sue because a store didn't carry what you wanted, how many thin women could sue stores such as Cato's, Lane Bryant and Catherine's? Hell, I could sue Wal-Mart for not carrying HammerFall t-shirts under this logic. Get a grip, folks. If you don't like what the store is selling, don't shop there, you know?



Jesus. Nice outlook. I can act like that, too! God, OBVIOUSLY there is a huge difference between some band t-shirt and something someone needs to cover their body. _Get a grip._



Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> that the economy is forcing people to lose weight through not buying junk food and candy that leaves you hungry only 1-2 hours after you eat it, therefore leading people to think more frugally, buying nutrititious, filling food with the little money they have so that they don't snack down every cent they have, therefore remvoing extra calories from their diet, slimming them down. That's what has happened to me.



LOL. Cheaper, nore nutritious food. lolololololol.
Also, the calories in/calories out being the simple solution to everything makes me guffaw. Nice that it worked for you, but THIS JUST IN: doesn't work for everyone.



Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> No, I don't think that will happen anymore than stores getting "power metal-friendly CEO's". At least there are stores that sell clothing for you BBWs. We power metal lovers have to shop in 7-10 different stores (some online) just to get anything. Just do what we do, get off your heinies and look around, don't expect the world to care or you'll feel as disappointed the first time I learned that you can't get a Children Of Bodom chainwallet at Hot Topic or the first time I learned that Wal-Mart (thatgirl08's favorite store haha) doesn't carry HammerFall CD's. It is what it is.



The self-righteousness is deafening.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 1, 2009)

Also: unfortunately, there is no case because Target has chosen to stop selling plus sized clothing. As much as it pisses me off, it's just how it is, I guess. Write letters, maybe they'll hear you. :\


----------



## Seth Warren (Jun 1, 2009)

Who is this *Power_Metal_Kitsune *and why is it on this forum?


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Jun 1, 2009)

I don't know, but it's kind of mind-numbing.

When listening to power metal, try to headbang away from a brick wall or this could happen to you.


----------



## Observer (Jun 1, 2009)

Power_Metal_Kitsune has been a member in good standing of the community since 2006 and posts periodically. He has as much right to be on this or any of the other boards as anyone else.


----------



## GWARrior (Jun 1, 2009)

well... she has the right. yes.



*done bein cheeky*


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 1, 2009)

Observer said:


> Power_Metal_Kitsune has been a member in good standing of the community since 2006 and posts periodically. He has as much right to be on this or any of the other boards as anyone else.



*She,* and I agree regardless if her views are controversial. *

And I have butted heads with her in the past. She still has the right to be here.


----------



## olwen (Jun 1, 2009)

Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> Stores are not legally obliged to sell anything they don't want to sell. I'm a power metal fan and the only stores that carry music in my area largely do not carry the muisic I listen to, but you don't see me trying to get a "power-metal-acceptance-friendly" attorney to make the stores sell the CDS I want, as no attorney in their right mind would take a case like that nor would they take this one. Besides, in that vein, if you could sue because a store didn't carry what you wanted, how many thin women could sue stores such as Cato's, Lane Bryant and Catherine's? Hell, I could sue Wal-Mart for not carrying HammerFall t-shirts under this logic. Get a grip, folks. If you don't like what the store is selling, don't shop there, you know?



Nice try, doesn't fly. I like metal gear too, and even here in NYC where you can find anything, you still have to go to niche stores to find that stuff and even then it doesn't come in large sizes. So I feel your pain, but really you can't compare this to not being able to find anything to wear at all. I wouldn't expect metal gear to be in a mainstream store, nor would I go to one thinking it should be there. Fat chicks don't have many options to begin with when trying to find regular clothes, so if we hear a store stops selling plus sized clothes we will rightly be concerned. If the stores in question are places like Ann Taylor then it wouldn't matter to larger bbws cause we couldn't shop there in the first place, but it would matter to smaller bbws. 

However, I do agree that there is no point to filing a lawsuit against a retailer. A better thing to do would be to contact the companies and complain. 



Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> that the economy is forcing people to lose weight through not buying junk food and candy that leaves you hungry only 1-2 hours after you eat it, therefore leading people to think more frugally, buying nutrititious, filling food with the little money they have so that they don't snack down every cent they have, therefore remvoing extra calories from their diet, slimming them down. That's what has happened to me.



.....Um.....what? 



Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> No, I don't think that will happen anymore than stores getting "power metal-friendly CEO's". At least there are stores that sell clothing for you BBWs. We power metal lovers have to shop in 7-10 different stores (some online) just to get anything. Just do what we do, get off your heinies and look around, don't expect the world to care or you'll feel as disappointed the first time I learned that you can't get a Children Of Bodom chainwallet at Hot Topic or the first time I learned that Wal-Mart (thatgirl08's favorite store haha) doesn't carry HammerFall CD's. It is what it is.



I'm not even going to bother to explain why this gets a 0_o and a .

Plus, it's time to watch Conan's new show.


----------



## Mac5689 (Jun 1, 2009)

ksandru said:


> Retail stores claim that because it takes 10% more fabric and in manufacturing plus size clothing, and that sales are down 8% in their stores (Bloomingdales, Ann Taylor and others) they will carry them online but not within the stores. Interestingly enough, a representative of the online plus size outlet OneStopPlus.com and a buyer from Jessica London said that sales for plus & supersizes are actually up 52% . It says to me that they just don't want large & supersized women to buy clothing in their stores, but yet they want our business on their websites?! does that make ANY sense? The problem in our community is that we are not a vocal majority & we just sit & take it, hoping not to draw attention to ourselves. And with all due respect, I don't see anything in the piece where they are reducing their clothing racks for big and tall men!




maybe some bigger women feel uncomfortable going to the stores to buy their clothes, but feel more comfortable buy them on-line. that could be why sales are down at the stores but not on-line


----------



## butch (Jun 2, 2009)

Interesting that nobody has tried to answer the question about why this is all about women's clothing, and not men's. It is so much easier to find fat men's clothing in retail stores then women's, and I can't imagine that fat men like shopping in stores versus online more than fat women? Hell, how much of the fat man's wardrobe is purchased by his wife/girlfriend anyway?

No matter how they spin it, it smells like a discriminatory move, not an economic one. A business may have a 'right' to discriminate in this instance, but isn't it a shame how many of us think that is AOK, or are apathetic enough to not even muster a half-hearted "You're right, this is wrong!" style post on this thread. No wonder fatties get treated so poorly in this world, we gladly take the crap dealt us because 'thats just the way it is.'


----------



## olwen (Jun 2, 2009)

Shouldn't this thread be on the clothing/fashion board?


----------



## 1300 Class (Jun 2, 2009)

Well, seems the door slamming on people with divergent opinions on a subject has reached a new record time. Bravo indeed!


----------



## gangstadawg (Jun 2, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> It makes sense if they don't want to be associated with fat women, and think they can make the same money through online sales. I'm not saying it's nice, but it's their prerogative. The recourse of the fat community to something like this would have to be protests or boycotts, not lawsuits, as there's not a lawyer in the country that would touch something like this with a ten foot pole.




this is starting to sound like bad business tactics. what happened to the 2 main rules of business which is to make money and to not care what hand the money comes from of since its all green regardless.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jun 2, 2009)

> No matter how they spin it, it smells like a discriminatory move, not an economic one. A business may have a 'right' to discriminate in this instance, but isn't it a shame how many of us think that is AOK, or are apathetic enough to not even muster a half-hearted "You're right, this is wrong!" style post on this thread. No wonder fatties get treated so poorly in this world, we gladly take the crap dealt us because 'thats just the way it is.'


Quite frankly that is a load of bullshit. Not selling Plus Size clothing has fuck all to do with 'descrimination'. Its like saying a cafe that sells only coffee and not tea is descriminating against tea drinkers. You take your trade somewhere else. Its a load of old pussy-footing around the situation rubbish. It will thus be that stores loss in trade from you and others. Money talks to business. And in todays climate of near unlimited internet shopping, there is greater access and communication than ever before.

The basic economic principal demands that if there is a supply shortage, a new vendor or market avenue will appear to satisfy demand. Now unless there are loads of fat naked people walking and driving around America, there will be a demand for plus size clothing. If the major chains aren't carrying the sizes, then smaller chains or individual stores/outlets will. It is the basic concept of the free market economics that most of the Western world is founded upon.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 2, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> Quite frankly that is a load of bullshit. Not selling Plus Size clothing has fuck all to do with 'descrimination'. Its like saying a cafe that sells only coffee and not tea is descriminating against tea drinkers. You take your trade somewhere else. Its a load of old pussy-footing around the situation rubbish. It will thus be that stores loss in trade from you and others. Money talks to business. And in todays climate of near unlimited internet shopping, there is greater access and communication than ever before.
> 
> The basic economic principal demands that if there is a supply shortage, a new vendor or market avenue will appear to satisfy demand. Now unless there are loads of fat naked people walking and driving around America, there will be a demand for plus size clothing. If the major chains aren't carrying the sizes, then smaller chains or individual stores/outlets will. It is the basic concept of the free market economics that most of the Western world is founded upon.



I totally agree. 

I'm not big on the whole discrimination thing where this is concerned.


----------



## AshleyEileen (Jun 2, 2009)

butch said:


> Interesting that nobody has tried to answer the question about why this is all about women's clothing, and not men's. It is so much easier to find fat men's clothing in retail stores then women's, and I can't imagine that fat men like shopping in stores versus online more than fat women? Hell, how much of the fat man's wardrobe is purchased by his wife/girlfriend anyway?



I disagree. 
I'm a very large size 28 and I have no problem finding clothes. I have a walk in closet that's overflowing. However, my boyfriend who is a size 2X-3X top and a size 48-50 bottom. He has such a small wardrobe! I have to order almost all of his clothes from online. I'm sorry, but he likes to wear something other than band tees and gym shorts. I guess we'll both have to resort to this if plus sizes are becoming obsolete in most stores. What a sight that'll be!


----------



## Tad (Jun 2, 2009)

Retailers care about the margin on what they sell, of course, but also on the volume they sell (if you barely sell any of something, you won't make much money even at a very good margin), and for tradition 'bricks & mortar' stores they also care very much about sales per square foot. 

Because of the sales per square foot issue, stores often stop carrying something even when they are making money it, because they think they can make more money on something else. For example, how many department stores still sell mattresses? They all used to, but I'm not sure if any do now? (and if they do, it will be a small selection I suspect). People want to test mattresses, which means they take up a lot of floor space. Even if you make a fair profit on them, a department store may be able to sell more of something else in that same floor space.

I suspect that what a lot of retailers are finding is that they cover enough of the larger market place by a combination of size inflation and extending their size range by a number or two (say make all your sizes an inch or two bigger than you used to, and instead of stopping at a 13/14 now go up to a 16 or an 18). They won't cover many people from Dimensions that way, but they will cover a large part of the "plus sized" market.

And frankly....I wonder if it is not for the best. What I saw of main line stores with plus sized sections was that they all seemed to carry very similar selections of basic pieces, with very little creativity, fun, or even stylishness (you might find a blazer with this year's lapel style, but you would find only two very basic skirts, for example).

To find actual stylish clothes in plus sizes, or to find much variety in pieces, colours, and styles, what I saw was that plus sized specialty retailers were absolutely the way to go. One specialty retailer is apt to provide more real variety than five stores with small selections of plus sizes basics, IMO.

Now I admit that the majority of my shopping was done in Canada, and I haven't been doing nearly as much plus sizes shopping in recent years since my wife no longer wears plus sizes for her tops, so perhaps things had changed and I've not seen it. But in all sorts of other retail niches I've noticed the same thing: one game store has far more selection than five department stores that all carry some games, one real hardware store has far more selection than five big stores that carry some tools, and so on and so forth.

So while it is sad to see any sort of selection disappearing, in some ways I wonder if this is not a good thing, as it makes less competition for those stores which make a real effort to provide variety and style to plus sized customers?


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jun 2, 2009)

Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> that the economy is forcing people to lose weight through not buying junk food and candy that leaves you hungry only 1-2 hours after you eat it, therefore leading people to think more frugally, buying nutrititious, filling food with the little money they have so that they don't snack down every cent they have, therefore remvoing extra calories from their diet, slimming them down. That's what has happened to me.




Really? Its been my experience that when money is tight the most affordable stuff to buy is ground beef, rice, beans and other things like that. Those kinds of foods most certainly don't slim me down, maybe other people are different.

That's why lots of poor people are fat, the prices on all the healthy stuff is way too high.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jun 2, 2009)

Or maybe it just says that the majority of supersize women shop online anyway so why bother to keep the clothes in stock for the few people that actually visit brick and mortar stores.




ksandru said:


> Retail stores claim that because it takes 10% more fabric and in manufacturing plus size clothing, and that sales are down 8% in their stores (Bloomingdales, Ann Taylor and others) they will carry them online but not within the stores. Interestingly enough, a representative of the online plus size outlet OneStopPlus.com and a buyer from Jessica London said that sales for plus & supersizes are actually up 52% . It says to me that they just don't want large & supersized women to buy clothing in their stores, but yet they want our business on their websites?! does that make ANY sense? The problem in our community is that we are not a vocal majority & we just sit & take it, hoping not to draw attention to ourselves. And with all due respect, I don't see anything in the piece where they are reducing their clothing racks for big and tall men!


----------



## ksandru (Jun 2, 2009)

Butch, I totally agree with you (seems we are in the minority here). We do tend to be more apathetic. Not only in the discontinuation of selling reduced stock but also putting up with the airline industries' move in charging supersized passengers for a second seat. In this instance I did not once hear that tall passengers will be similarly charged since their legs tend to take up aisle space as well. We have even allowed several plus-sized/size acceptance magazines fold. It's so sad we have come to this - the lack of complacency within the size-acceptance community  





butch said:


> Interesting that nobody has tried to answer the question about why this is all about women's clothing, and not men's. It is so much easier to find fat men's clothing in retail stores then women's, and I can't imagine that fat men like shopping in stores versus online more than fat women? Hell, how much of the fat man's wardrobe is purchased by his wife/girlfriend anyway?
> 
> No matter how they spin it, it smells like a discriminatory move, not an economic one. A business may have a 'right' to discriminate in this instance, but isn't it a shame how many of us think that is AOK, or are apathetic enough to not even muster a half-hearted "You're right, this is wrong!" style post on this thread. No wonder fatties get treated so poorly in this world, we gladly take the crap dealt us because 'thats just the way it is.'


----------



## Tooz (Jun 2, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Really? Its been my experience that when money is tight the most affordable stuff to buy is ground beef, rice, beans and other things like that. Those kinds of foods most certainly don't slim me down, maybe other people are different.
> 
> That's why lots of poor people are fat, the prices on all the healthy stuff is way too high.



The only meat we're able to buy with some semblance of frequency is ground beef. You are right, I think.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Jun 2, 2009)

Tooz said:


> The only meat we're able to buy with some semblance of frequency is ground beef. You are right, I think.




Yup, I grew up in a really poor family and most days we had rice or oatmeal for breakfast, lunch at school (thank god for those nasty school lunches) and beans for dinner. If we were lucky and my dad had a good payday we'd have ground beef in the beans.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 2, 2009)

Power_Metal_Kitsune said:


> that the economy is forcing people to lose weight through not buying junk food and candy that leaves you hungry only 1-2 hours after you eat it, therefore leading people to think more frugally, buying nutrititious, filling food with the little money they have so that they don't snack down every cent they have, therefore remvoing extra calories from their diet, slimming them down. That's what has happened to me.



Is this a joke? Oh yes, I long for the days of prosperity where I was perpetually hungry and lived a salty dry mouthed existence on cake, chips and chocolate. Now I have to spend my meager earnings on powdered soup, 2 liter bottles of soda pop, canned vegetables, Kool Aid packs and distilled water. So much better for me than those bothersome fresh meats, fruits and vegetables that perished if not eaten right away. I can't decide if I should be insulted or terrified by your reasonings.


----------



## Tooz (Jun 2, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Yup, I grew up in a really poor family and most days we had rice or oatmeal for breakfast, lunch at school (thank god for those nasty school lunches) and beans for dinner. If we were lucky and my dad had a good payday we'd have ground beef in the beans.




Yeah. Tacos is a "we have money" meal. If it's tight, it's Ragu w/some noodles or baked beans.


----------



## butch (Jun 2, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> Quite frankly that is a load of bullshit. Not selling Plus Size clothing has fuck all to do with 'descrimination'. Its like saying a cafe that sells only coffee and not tea is descriminating against tea drinkers. You take your trade somewhere else. Its a load of old pussy-footing around the situation rubbish. It will thus be that stores loss in trade from you and others. Money talks to business. And in todays climate of near unlimited internet shopping, there is greater access and communication than ever before.
> 
> The basic economic principal demands that if there is a supply shortage, a new vendor or market avenue will appear to satisfy demand. Now unless there are loads of fat naked people walking and driving around America, there will be a demand for plus size clothing. If the major chains aren't carrying the sizes, then smaller chains or individual stores/outlets will. It is the basic concept of the free market economics that most of the Western world is founded upon.



You can call bullshit all you like but come with me shopping for fat people's clothes in the US and I'll show you that fat men have more options in the same stores that are limiting options for fat women, and you give me an explanation I'll actually think is logical and factual that isn't about discrimination, and I'll change my tune. Seriously, why is the fat men's clothing market thriving in retail stores, and only fat men's clothes, if 'the economy is the only reason for the removal of plus sized clothing from retail stores?

Other than AshleyEileen disagreeing with me about options for men, I love how those of you who disagree with me offer up no compelling reason why there is a disparity between what fat men can get in retail stores and what fat women can get. Perhaps I shop in the wrong stores, but I can buy a complete wardrobe at the mall without having to go in to a specialty retailer (aka the fattie-only stores) if I buy men's clothes, but not if I buy women's. And, btw, I'm not talking about gym shorts and t-shirts, but slacks, sweaters, etc. 

If this is driven by economics, the only plausible explanation I can see for the possibility that plus size clothing is not selling as well as it did is because so many fat women are finding better options online by purchasing from small business owners. So, if those larger companies actually wanted fat women's business, all they have to do is provide the same sort of quality and fit and appearance as the clothes the thin women buy at their stores. The fact that they couldn't be bothered to do that shows that these companies really don't think fat women's dollars are as valuable as thin women's dollars.

That is discrimination, the casual, everyday disdain and ignorance of a group of people because others view them as 'less than.' I don't think those companies are overtly conspiring to 'discriminate' against fat women, but because they assume 'everybody else' thinks fat women are a stigmatized group, they aren't invested in attracting the fat woman consumer. You can see this in the stores that continue to stock plus size clothing, since the plus sized section is always in the absolute worst location in the store. After a while, the fat consumer picks up the message that they are not as valued as the thin customer, and if they have the option, they go somewhere else. 

Again, all that may be 'legal' and perhaps even 'fair,' but it doesn't mean I have to like it, or that I have to concede all my dignity to big business because the only thing that matters, as many of you seem to stress in this thread, is money and 'the economy.' But yeah, keep on worshipping the filthy lucre if you think that trumps everything else in this world.


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 2, 2009)

butch said:


> Other than AshleyEileen disagreeing with me about options for men, I love how those of you who disagree with me offer up no compelling reason why there is a disparity between what fat men can get in retail stores and what fat women can get.



I agreed with someone and he said what I was thinking much better than I could put it into words so I didn't try to. That's compelling enough for me.

Plus I live in Canada where MEN have far less options plus sized clothes wise.


----------



## butch (Jun 2, 2009)

Surlysomething said:


> I agreed with someone and he said what I was thinking much better than I could put it into words so I didn't try to. That's compelling enough for me.
> 
> Plus I live in Canada where MEN have far less options plus sized clothes wise.



Well, the person you agreed with did not address the main point of my argument, and since the article in question was about US retailers, seems that your point about Canada is moot. Thanks for sticking up for yourself, though, as anyone should.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Jun 2, 2009)

I disagree with you. I can assure you, it's not about worshipping the 'filthy lucre'; if anything, I feel quite a bit of disdain for our "free market" economy, which has in part led us to the brink of collapse. But it is what it is, Butch. Complaining online about discrimination guised as capitalism isn't useful, nor is this issue as cut and dried as you've written below. 

I happen to believe that retailers are driven by greed, by margins and profits and bottom lines, and if they aren't going to make those profits in selling plus-sized clothing (or if, as Ed highlighted, they feel that they can make *more* money providing another item or service), they're simply not going to offer them. This isn't discrimination. It's not a stroll in the park (more like a kick in the teeth, actually), but it's not fat discrimination. 

I have a brother who is very big - about 6'4", I'd guess in the neighborhood of 300+ pounds. He has a very difficult time finding nice clothing. Then again, he lives in a small farming community - but when he goes to the nearest city and shops the malls, he complains frequently about not finding clothes in the right length or that fit his broad shoulders. About the only place he has any luck is in the Big & Tall stores. 

But comparing men plus sizes to woman plus sizes is apples to oranges, anyway. Statistically speaking, the "average" American woman is a size 12-16, maybe 18 at the outset. I believe that is why you find most department stores with plus-size clothing seldom provide anything outside of those ranges (or if they do, it's designated to a different area of the store, and it's usually little more than cheerful appliqued nightmares gracing unflattering cuts of cotton or spandex). Retailers are going to cater to the majority. Simple economics. Again, I'm not discussing whether it is fair or not. Just flatly stating that it is ... what it is. If Target/Wal-Mart/retail outlet stores are selling larger men's sizes, it is because statistically there is a more sizeable market for larger men. 

If we were talking about anything but clothing manufacturers & retail stores I'd think that you may have a point, as I do agree with your points about the casual disdain and discrimination that fat women must deal with. But I just don't see Mr. Macy's Moneybags deciding to cut the plus-size line because he doesn't want the fatties in his store. Moneybags wants money in his pocket. He'll line them in the most efficient manner possible. That's what I believe.




butch said:


> You can call bullshit all you like but come with me shopping for fat people's clothes in the US and I'll show you that fat men have more options in the same stores that are limiting options for fat women, and you give me an explanation I'll actually think is logical and factual that isn't about discrimination, and I'll change my tune. Seriously, why is the fat men's clothing market thriving in retail stores, and only fat men's clothes, if 'the economy is the only reason for the removal of plus sized clothing from retail stores?
> 
> Other than AshleyEileen disagreeing with me about options for men, I love how those of you who disagree with me offer up no compelling reason why there is a disparity between what fat men can get in retail stores and what fat women can get. Perhaps I shop in the wrong stores, but I can buy a complete wardrobe at the mall without having to go in to a specialty retailer (aka the fattie-only stores) if I buy men's clothes, but not if I buy women's. And, btw, I'm not talking about gym shorts and t-shirts, but slacks, sweaters, etc.
> 
> ...


----------



## butch (Jun 2, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I disagree with you. I can assure you, it's not about worshipping the 'filthy lucre'; if anything, I feel quite a bit of disdain for our "free market" economy, which has in part led us to the brink of collapse. But it is what it is, Butch. Complaining online about discrimination guised as capitalism isn't useful, nor is this issue as cut and dried as you've written below.
> 
> I happen to believe that retailers are driven by greed, by margins and profits and bottom lines, and if they aren't going to make those profits in selling plus-sized clothing (or if, as Ed highlighted, they feel that they can make *more* money providing another item or service), they're simply not going to offer them. This isn't discrimination. It's not a stroll in the park (more like a kick in the teeth, actually), but it's not fat discrimination.
> 
> ...



Thank goodness someone actually took the time to read all of my points. While you haven't swayed my position, TraciJo, thanks for offering plausible and articulate rebuttals to my points. Perhaps it is best for the collective readers of Dims that I don't have time right now to continue this debate, but it is an important debate to have, regardless of your stance, don't you think?


----------



## lypeaches (Jun 2, 2009)

butch said:


> You can call bullshit all you like but come with me shopping for fat people's clothes in the US and I'll show you that fat men have more options in the same stores that are limiting options for fat women, and you give me an explanation I'll actually think is logical and factual that isn't about discrimination, and I'll change my tune. Seriously, why is the fat men's clothing market thriving in retail stores, and only fat men's clothes, if 'the economy is the only reason for the removal of plus sized clothing from retail stores?
> 
> Other than AshleyEileen disagreeing with me about options for men, I love how those of you who disagree with me offer up no compelling reason why there is a disparity between what fat men can get in retail stores and what fat women can get. Perhaps I shop in the wrong stores, but I can buy a complete wardrobe at the mall without having to go in to a specialty retailer (aka the fattie-only stores) if I buy men's clothes, but not if I buy women's. And, btw, I'm not talking about gym shorts and t-shirts, but slacks, sweaters, etc.
> 
> ...



OK, I'll offer an explanation. It's a numbers game. Long story short, there's very little variation in mens style, so you have more customers for the same garment. Say you're trying to sell a light blue button down shirt. In a big and tall mens store...if 20 men come in looking for a light blue shirt, most of them will purchase that light blue shirt. If you have a light blue womans shirt for sale, and you have a 20 women coming in looking for a light blue shirt....they have many other factors to consider...some will want a collar, some will not, some want stretch in the fabric, some do not, some want a different neckline, or a different sleeve, or some detailing on the bodice, or they might want a different fabric altogether. Or the shirt you have might not be long enough, short enough, or the sleeves not big enough...there are 100 different variations in a womans "light blue shirt". So a few might purchase it, but I'll bet dollars to donuts not as many as the men would. 

With womens plus size clothing, inventory is huge problem in a brick and mortar store. You need to have a high traffic volume in order to find a customer for any given garment. Women have many more requirements for their clothing than men do (color, cut, body specific fit requirements, detailing, plus their specific style needs if they're purchasing it to "go with" something they already own). Mens clothes are pretty much the same...button down shirts, casual knit shirts, sweaters, suits, trousers, jeans. Styles vary only slightly. Therefore, it is more difficult for a store to supply the exact *right* garments for their female customers. It's why department store stuff is usually so bland...they're trying to appeal to biggest cross section possible. 

I hope that makes some sense...


----------



## Tooz (Jun 2, 2009)

This is kind of a tangent, but lypeaches' post brings something interesting up to me.

As a fat woman, I rarely, if ever, go out to look for a specific garment. I don't think I have ever looked for the "light blue shirt." Having been fat pretty much all of my life, I learned long ago to just go into a store in the hopes of finding SOMETHING I'd like. When I go into Lane Bryant or what have you, I don't know what I want-- I look at everything. Setting myself up to find the unlocatable (in this case, the "light blue shirt" that I would like and would fit me) just ends in frustration and empty hands due to the small amount of clothing available to me.


----------



## Tad (Jun 2, 2009)

butch said:


> Other than AshleyEileen disagreeing with me about options for men, I love how those of you who disagree with me offer up no compelling reason why there is a disparity between what fat men can get in retail stores and what fat women can get.



Butch;

With all due respect, the thread is called "Major Retailers Removing Plus-Sized Clothing" and it is not called "Women's Plus Sized Clothing in the US Discriminated Against Compared to Men's." So a lot of posters are probably NOT TRYING to respond to your points, either to agree or disagree, but are rather addressing the original topic of the thread. Some may choose to respond to your post, others will be responding to other posts, or as in my case not responding to any particular post but rather giving their general thoughts on the topic. 

If you want to have a discussion focused onlyon the options of men's versus women's larger clothing, you may want to start a new thread on it. Although....history suggests that such threads tend to snarkify quickly, so it might take very careful title choice and opening proposition to result in a productive discussion. It might be interesting if it happens, however.

As to your point about how there are more men's big clothes in general retailers, I think it has always been true that a large portion of all men's clothes are bought by the women folk in their lives, or under the influence of the women folk in their lives. As a result, I think a much larger portion of menswear, of any size, is sold in stores that women would have some other reason to be in already. At least around here there are very few dedicated menswear stores compared to dedicated womenswear. For example in the small mall near my work, there are at least eight stores that sell clothing only aimed at women (I might have missed one or two more), and none that only sell men's clothes. Besides a Sears there are two that sell both, and in both cases the women's wear section is larger than the men's. I suspect that the VAST majority of all men's clothing sold at that mall is in the Sears, while I doubt that is the case when it comes to women's clothes.

Which doesn't totally explain the difference in how they handle large sized cltohes, but I think it does illustrate how different those two markets are.


----------



## Tad (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm too late to edit my last post, so I'll add this here: in that mall, one of the women's wear stores is plus sizes, and one of the others has a plus sizes section. The only place you'd find bigger men's clothes is in Sears. And by bigger, I'm talking even my size (42" waist) which is not all that big as these things go. If you are looking for men's clothes, and aren't fashionably svelte, you will shop at Sears, or not at that mall. I'm pretty sure that Sear's has more options in larger men's sizes than in larger women's sizes, but there are two other places in the mall that you can shop for larger women's clothes.....a bit of a toss up on which is worse IMO.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 2, 2009)

I think there are a lot of people who complain about retail stores not acommodating their dynamic. I hear all the time complaints from petites and women over 30. Complaints about trendy low waisted pants and midriff tops, too long, too short, etc. Stores are all about the botton line and acommodating the greatest common denominator with leaves us and lots of others out of the loop. They saw Old Navy do it with success so now everyone else is going to do it too. 

A side note: There's a local Big and Tall outfit here in MA called Hajjars. When I need a white dress shirt I go there since the local plus sized stores don't go to my size. Some of you BHM's might like to try looking there, the stuff is pretty good.


----------



## ashmamma84 (Jun 2, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I disagree with you. I can assure you, it's not about worshipping the 'filthy lucre'; if anything, I feel quite a bit of disdain for our "free market" economy, which has in part led us to the brink of collapse. But it is what it is, Butch. Complaining online about discrimination guised as capitalism isn't useful, nor is this issue as cut and dried as you've written below.
> 
> I happen to believe that retailers are driven by greed, by margins and profits and bottom lines, and if they aren't going to make those profits in selling plus-sized clothing (or if, as Ed highlighted, they feel that they can make *more* money providing another item or service), they're simply not going to offer them. This isn't discrimination. It's not a stroll in the park (more like a kick in the teeth, actually), but it's not fat discrimination.
> 
> ...



I agree with you. It's not just happening with plus size retailers - stores that carry straight sized clothing has taken a nose dive as well. Sign of the times. 

PS - I don't necessarily think fat women are complacent. It could be that alot of women have other options when it comes to clothing, so some closings aren't the end of the world - especially for women 14-24. There is always a way around an issue. So some retailers are closing; there are several new independent designers popping up and there are still some Old Standby Fatgirl stores around. We complain and complain, but the best way to show folks is with your wallet - let it speak for you.


----------



## JMNYC (Jun 2, 2009)

Article in Crain's:

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090531/FREE/305319991


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jun 2, 2009)

ashmamma84 said:


> I agree with you. It's not just happening with plus size retailers - stores that carry straight sized clothing has taken a nose dive as well. Sign of the times.
> 
> PS - I don't necessarily think fat women are complacent. It could be that alot of women have other options when it comes to clothing, so some closings aren't the end of the world - especially for women 14-24. There is always a way around an issue. So some retailers are closing; there are several new independent designers popping up and there are still some Old Standby Fatgirl stores around. We complain and complain, but the best way to show folks is with your wallet - let it speak for you.



I think thats the problem, people have let their wallets speak for them. I stopped shopping in mainstream stores ages ago. I've always always always thought the plus sized selection at stores like Kohls, Sears and other departments stores were just fugly. My mother had a Macy's charge and would give it to me to purchase things and it was almost like punishment. I'd have rather she just give me cash so I could go someplace else. Now that's just me. I've been lectured many times about how the stores stock what people will buy so I kept quiet about it. 

On the other hand, with the growing population of plus sized individuals I find it hard to believe there isn't SOME niche out there. The stores kept up with trends and changed with the times. Why not now? Why pull the plug? I'm wondering if the needs of plus sized individuals has grown to the point where we truly have become a separate entity too vast and too diverse to accommodate.


----------



## ashmamma84 (Jun 2, 2009)

LillyBBBW said:


> I think thats the problem, people have let their wallets speak for them. I stopped shopping in mainstream stores ages ago. I've always always always thought the plus sized selection at stores like Kohls, Sears and other departments stores were just fugly. My mother had a Macy's charge and would give it to me to purchase things and it was almost like punishment. I'd have rather she just give me cash so I could go someplace else. Now that's just me. I've been lectured many times about how the stores stock what people will buy so I kept quiet about it.
> 
> On the other hand, with the growing population of plus sized individuals I find it hard to believe there isn't SOME niche out there. The stores kept up with trends and changed with the times. Why not now? Why pull the plug? I'm wondering if the needs of plus sized individuals has grown to the point where we truly have become a separate entity too vast and too diverse to accommodate.



I think it's a combination of several things. 

I've never shopped in Kohl's, Sears, JCPenney etc for plus size clothing, but from what I've seen it isn't something my speed. 

Macy's looks very different today than it did even 5 years ago. Maybe the buyer's changed, because I can walk in and find really nice, age appropriate clothing in the plus size section - both for work wear and casual. I actually like shopping there - Calvin Klein, Ninewest, Michael Kors and others have taken up shop in the fat chick section. Style and Co is pretty good too for some of my basics. 

I do think there is a niche. LB, Torrid, and others are still around. But I also think the demographic that shops Sears or KMart plus sizes is a lil different from those who shop Macy's/Nordstrom, etc. That might be why certain stores are affected and others are kinda weathering the storm. 

I'm wondering if our needs are too vast as well. I know just dealing with my own body - I'm really short, but have lots and lots of curves; it's difficult to find clothing I'm really satisfied with. I spend alot on tailoring and sometimes I just forego whatever item I wanted because I know it will require extra tinkering so that it's just right. And I'm just one story - I'm sure there are millions of them across the country. Add that to a shitty economy and I think it leaves some fat chicks feeling put out.

eta - it's expensive to produce plus size clothing; especially plus size clothing that's quality and if you don't have women buying that's money down the drain.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jun 2, 2009)

> In this instance I did not once hear that tall passengers will be similarly charged since their legs tend to take up aisle space as well.


Wrong. Here you go: 
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25539308-952,00.html


> QANTAS will penalise the tall by charging passengers extra for reserving economy class exit-row seats on its international flights.
> 
> Passengers looking for more leg room will be charged an extra $160 on long-haul flights, and $80 per sector on short-haul flights to Asia and New Zealand.





> I disagree with you. I can assure you, it's not about worshipping the 'filthy lucre'; if anything, I feel quite a bit of disdain for our "free market" economy, which has in part led us to the brink of collapse. But it is what it is, Butch. Complaining online about discrimination guised as capitalism isn't useful, nor is this issue as cut and dried as you've written below.
> 
> I happen to believe that retailers are driven by greed, by margins and profits and bottom lines, and if they aren't going to make those profits in selling plus-sized clothing (or if, as Ed highlighted, they feel that they can make *more* money providing another item or service), they're simply not going to offer them. This isn't discrimination. It's not a stroll in the park (more like a kick in the teeth, actually), but it's not fat discrimination.
> 
> ...


Thank you. Far more articulate than I could have ever conveyed it.


----------



## AshleyEileen (Jun 2, 2009)

ashmamma84 said:


> We complain and complain, but the best way to show folks is with your wallet - let it speak for you.




This!
Over and over and over again.


----------



## butch (Jun 2, 2009)

edx said:


> Butch;
> 
> With all due respect, the thread is called "Major Retailers Removing Plus-Sized Clothing" and it is not called "Women's Plus Sized Clothing in the US Discriminated Against Compared to Men's." So a lot of posters are probably NOT TRYING to respond to your points, either to agree or disagree, but are rather addressing the original topic of the thread. Some may choose to respond to your post, others will be responding to other posts, or as in my case not responding to any particular post but rather giving their general thoughts on the topic.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the perspective, Ed. I was using the disparity between men's and women's clothes as an example of how the rationales given for why women's clothes are being taken out of retail stores, while men's clothes don't appear to be, as one big problematic in terms of it only being a numbers game, and thus my take on the dynamic as being passive, perhaps even inadvertent, discrimination. A discrimination that is the legacy of fat people's perpetual stigmatized status in contemporary Western countries. 

I think we all agree that it is well documented that many leading designers don't design for the plus size market, regardless of the financial incentive to do so, because they believe that the value of their labels go down when they don't exclusively cater to a particular demographic that happens to be on the smaller side. Perhaps economically that makes sense, but it is hard to see how such a financial plan makes sense when most other industries in capitalist countries focus on a bigger is better, mass market plan. However, I can get Ralph Lauren clothes up to at least a 6x at Casual Male, and Calvin Klein stuff up to at least a 5x, and my experience shows that women at these sizes don't have access to these designers or other comparable designers. How does Calvin or Ralph make money on 6x polos for men, but not women? Because there seems to be less stigma attached to very fat men wearing these clothes, and that again suggests to me that discrimination plays a role in both the supply and demand of plus sized clothing for women. 

In my mind, this is related to why retailers are quick to abandon plus size clothing instead of actually trying to read the market and come up with a plan that gives fat women what they want, because they think fat women are not a 'quality' consumer who has the income to spend a lot on nice clothes and other products. It is sort of a catch-22, isn't it? How can fat women buy the clothes they need if the clothes they need aren't supplied to them, or if, in the case of Old Navy, the company never advertises that they've started to carry Plus Size clothing in the first place, and then turns around and removes it from stores because 'no one was buying it.' 

So, as others have pointed out in this thread, women stop shopping at places that don't cater to them, and would someone out there decide to really tap into this market (the same way they tap into the big and tall market, where things cost more too for some of the reasons listed by another poster about women's clothes), they would get the customer traffic they require, as Ashmamma points out with Macy's. 

Plus, in many of the Macy type stores, I bet clothes have the lowest profit margin in the place. They lure you in for clothes, and hope you buy jewelry, appliances, and the like, with a higher mark up. Don't fat people buy these things, too, so why not cater to them and get them to purchase the high ticket items as well?

Regardless of one's opinion on why this is happening, the fact remains that as long as we sit back and let the market dictate our lives, we'll always be 'less than' because we don't even care enough to be upset that we don't have the same options average sized people do in retail establishments. If truly over 60% of the US populations is fat, like the government claims, that means that a sizable portion of the buying public is happy with crappy clothing and retail choices, if they're willing to act as if they are in service to retail, and not the other way around.

fwiw, I say this as someone with a solid background in retail management, albeit not in the clothing realm.


----------



## Lamebrain (Jun 2, 2009)

Stores have free enterprise, they have the right to sell whatever they want. If you actually want to do something try being vocal with activism and boycotting stores


----------



## olwen (Jun 2, 2009)

I have a lot of thoughts on this after reading the posts in this thread, so bear with me.

I think a number of things are happening here. First off, since we're talking about fashion there's the looming spectre of cache to add to the mix. We are inevitably consumers living in a capitalist society, and as consumers we have been trained to appreciate and be loyal to labels. So with thin people, I know some will spend money on a garment if it's a certain label. The more exclusive the more people are going to want it, which adds value to the brand. Exclusivity means certain people will be left out on purpose. So this sometimes means fat people. 

At the same time we're living in a world where there are probably more fat people who are ashamed of being fat than there are proud ones. Shame based fatties just aren't going to think to complain. They'll spend all their energy trying to fit into the exclusive label. They'll even buy the smaller sizes in the hopes of one day fitting into them. And since they are ashamed they won't give much thought to wearing fugly clothes and will just buy them cause hey, can't leave the house naked. 

I'm one of those fat people who just hated shopping for a long time because I didn't think retailers would have size 28s or 32s, so I never set foot in those store and never shop with thin women. Then when I found out old navy had plus sizes and were getting rid of them I was steamed. They never advertised that fact. So why not? Well if your advertising budget has a limit, then it makes sense to not spend that money on the segment of your customers who only make up say 15% of sales. The more I learn about marketing, like the less I blame them. It's just not worth the effort for the retailer. It's cheaper to have an online only presence for a certain demographic, which is why they've all probably switched their plus size lines to online only. Sucks for their plus sized cutomers, but it saves them money. Also if there were lots of fat shoppers like me, then they didn't spend the money because they didn't know they could. It's a catch 22 unfortunately. 

If there are enough fat people who are not ashamed to wear "fat girl clothes" then yeah we should complain and we could start by having an internet presence which some fat chicks have done with their fat fashion blogs. An article in the new york times mentioned the young fat and fabulous blog in an article about Kirste Alley of all things (tho didn't provide a link), and as an aside, my thin coworker asked me last week if I had heard of the fatshionista blog. How the heck did she find out about it? Word of mouth, so the word is getting out. There are fat chicks who want to rock the fierce threads. Will that convince mainstream retaliers and designers with cache brands to make and market decent clothes to fat chicks? Well, we still have to overcome this crazy attitude that being fat is dangerous and morally repugnant, and irresponsible. Once that happens, then maybe the fabric will flow. Until then, we probably just need to find a way to cater to and support ourselves by learning to sew or to start fashion blogs. 

As for men's clothes, I can't comment much since I don't really shop for plus sized men's clothes that often. I will admit that if I need a button down shirt that fits, I know I'll be able to find a size 28 equivalent in a big and tall shop. But as to the discrepency of availability, I dunno, I think maybe men's fashion in general is a whole different animal since men's bodies just aren't commodified the way women's bodies are. Perhaps a topic for another thread.


----------



## Cors (Jun 3, 2009)

I agree, it is all about economics and it is not just about plus sizes. 

Most American stores stopped carrying extra-small sizes years ago. Despite all that hype about thin being "in", there simply isn't enough demand. I am a true size 0 and have trouble finding clothes that actually fit and this is even before considering my shape. The smallest size is many places is a 4 or 2 and thanks to vanity sizing, the few 0s and even 00s I manage to find in Gap, Banana Republic, Express end up fitting like a 4 anyway. I usually end up having to shop in the kid's section (poor selection and definitely not the best fit) or shop at higher end stores (££££££).


----------



## ksandru (Jun 3, 2009)

I was referring to US airliners, not Quantas 



Australian Lord said:


> Wrong. Here you go:
> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25539308-952,00.html


----------



## ksandru (Jun 3, 2009)

Olwen: You brought up some very valid points within your post. I am a size 30-32 and even within sites & catalogs catered to plus sized women , I cannot wear the clothing. Jessica London has some extremely fierce clothing in their catalog; however, the really nice styles only are available in a size 24. Same with Silouettes (sp)? Don't even factor in that I am very pear-shaped.

IMO, overall, I see the size acceptance movement (if you can call it that) as slipping a bit, and I totally agree with your observation that there are alot of shame based fat women who will not complain in order not to draw attention to themselves. Every time I see a Dr. Phil, Oprah (who for a billionaire exhibits a lot of self-loathing) or any talk based show where a fat person is on the show either being criticized for, whining about their weight or bragging about their weight loss, when they cut to the fat people in the audience, you see them laughing, gasping or applauding loudly with the audience. For once, I would love to see a fat person stand up & object to what is going on the stage. It more than likely would get edited out of the show, but at least it would show one of us refuses to play the victim game. For myself, I stopped that nonsense when an OB-GYN recommended to me when I first learned of my pregnancy was apathetic about treating me due to my size and age (He predicted I would not carry my son to term). Well, my baby is now coming up on eight months old and is a happy, healthy child.


----------



## Rosie (Jun 5, 2009)

ksandru said:


> Would we have a case with the ACLU? Anyone know any size-acceptance attorneys willing to take this on? What are your thoughts?!




Good grief, you can't force retailers to sell a product. Why would you even want to? There are still plenty of places to buy plus-size clothing and even stores that sell only larger sizes. 

Besides, this will only hurt them sales-wise - since over 60% of the American public is considered "overweight", their sales will drop noticeably, then they will perhaps realize what a mistake they made. It's not like people who bought plus-size clothes will suddenly start buying average size ones.


----------



## ToniTails (Jun 5, 2009)

I have to agree here. I don't believe it's a legal issue. Let the lack of sells speak for themselves.




Rosie said:


> Good grief, you can't force retailers to sell a product. Why would you even want to? There are still plenty of places to buy plus-size clothing and even stores that sell only larger sizes.
> 
> Besides, this will only hurt them sales-wise - since over 60% of the American public is considered "overweight", their sales will drop noticeably, then they will perhaps realize what a mistake they made. It's not like people who bought plus-size clothes will suddenly start buying average size ones.


----------



## olwen (Jun 6, 2009)

ksandru said:


> Olwen: You brought up some very valid points within your post. I am a size 30-32 and even within sites & catalogs catered to plus sized women , I cannot wear the clothing. Jessica London has some extremely fierce clothing in their catalog; however, the really nice styles only are available in a size 24. Same with Silouettes (sp)? Don't even factor in that I am very pear-shaped.
> 
> IMO, overall, I see the size acceptance movement (if you can call it that) as slipping a bit, and I totally agree with your observation that there are alot of shame based fat women who will not complain in order not to draw attention to themselves. Every time I see a Dr. Phil, Oprah (who for a billionaire exhibits a lot of self-loathing) or any talk based show where a fat person is on the show either being criticized for, whining about their weight or bragging about their weight loss, when they cut to the fat people in the audience, you see them laughing, gasping or applauding loudly with the audience. For once, I would love to see a fat person stand up & object to what is going on the stage. It more than likely would get edited out of the show, but at least it would show one of us refuses to play the victim game. For myself, I stopped that nonsense when an OB-GYN recommended to me when I first learned of my pregnancy was apathetic about treating me due to my size and age (He predicted I would not carry my son to term). Well, my baby is now coming up on eight months old and is a happy, healthy child.



Sometimes I think we need to redefine what size acceptance actually is. I'm not even sure what it is myself anymore. I do think there are a few popular (almost mainstream) bloggers who do a good job of exposing the hypocrisy and dropping the knowledge on people, but those few are not enough. If oprah could do a show with all the popular bloggers (big fat blog, shapely prose, junkfoodscience) who could really talk about what they do and how they've made an impact that might go a long way. 

Really tho, if there were fewer shame based fatties that would go a long way too. We're just not unified enough as a group to be politically effective in the way that other movements were. Maybe the day when there are fewer shame based fatties we will have enough of a presence to let our wallets speak for us, then retailers and designers will listen.

For now, I have to try to turn a mumu into a rockin dress. Wish me luck.


----------



## BarbBBW (Jun 6, 2009)

While I was shopping at Fashion Bug, The sales woman told me that they are getting rid of "misses" size Pj's and lingerie. I don't know how true it is, but something to ponder as well!


----------



## bremerton (Jun 6, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Really? Its been my experience that when money is tight the most affordable stuff to buy is ground beef, rice, beans and other things like that. Those kinds of foods most certainly don't slim me down, maybe other people are different.
> 
> That's why lots of poor people are fat, the prices on all the healthy stuff is way too high.


PRECISELY. the healthiest food- fresh fruits and veggies- are pretty expensive.


----------



## Power_Metal_Kitsune (Jan 24, 2010)

Observer said:


> Power_Metal_Kitsune has been a member in good standing of the community since 2006 and posts periodically. He has as much right to be on this or any of the other boards as anyone else.



Thank you, Observer. I came on tonight to try to find the FFA/BHM board (BHM hubby is having confidence issues and I wanted advice) and saw this.

And Tooz dear, there are plenty of stores that carry larger sizes still, such as Lane Bryant, Wal-Mart, Kohl's, Avenue, Catherine's, Fashion Bug, etc. If you don't like everything a store has, DIY and shop around and build an outfit yourself. That's what I do

And no, power metal life is not one bit different from any other marginalized group, and I should know as a Native American-and-white-power metal-fan-pagan-FFA-who-has-been-on-dialysis-for-28-months-waiting-for-a-kidney-for-5-years/ex-BBW. I have been spit on, called a Satanist, all of it. 

So please don't tell me I am self-righteous because I say it the way I see it.


----------

