Image source: The Londoner
Today on Slate there is an op-ed piece by Laura Bradley about the clothing retailer Brandy Melville. To be honest, I have been in a Brandy Melville store twice and found the merchandise catered to a much younger crowd. What I didn't know on those visits is that it also only caters to a much smaller crowd as well: Brandy Melville only sells sizes 00-2/X-Small-Small. Apparently their brand motto is: "One Size Fits Most." Given that the store targets teenage girls, I find this strategy concerning (among other things). Using exclusivity to strengthen a brand is one thing, but basing that exclusivity on the body type of young girls seems to be crossing a very dangerous line indeed.
The counter-argument is that getting upset about a retailer that only offers smaller sizes is just as bad as fat-shaming (it's skinny-shaming). But this argument is fundamentally flawed since the sizes offered at Brandy Melville are offered at every major retailer, these smaller clients are not being excluded from any store. Size small (or extra small) is not average - it's in the lefthand tail of the distribution - so only a small proportion of the teenage-girl population can fit in the sizes at Brandy Melville and those who don't may go to extreme or unhealthy lengths to do so. Also, until people feel bad about not being able to shop at a plus-size store, I will refrain from giving the skinny-shaming argument much weight.
This article also reminded me of another article I read recently about "reverse" photoshopping. Accordingly, photo editors reverse the negative side effects of under-eating and extreme thinness by making models look "bigger and healthier" (erasing protruding rib cages, filling in sunken cheeks, adding color to graying skin). A creative director at Vogue magazine is quoted in the article as saying, "Thanks to retouching, our readers... never saw the horrible, hungry downside of skinny. That these underweight girls didn't look glamorous in the flesh. Their skeletal bodies, dull, thinning hair, spots and dark circles under their eyes were magicked away by technology, leaving only the allure of coltish limbs and Bambi eyes." Again, people may suggest this is just shaming those who are "naturally" skinny - but the point is that this ideal we present to women is not natural - it's only achieved through extremes and unhealthy habits, yet all of that is swept under the rug. This means that women are pursuing an unnatural ideal under the false pretenses that it is achievable, normal, and healthy.
During the 2014 Winter Olympics, I made a quick scatter plot of height and weight for the U.S. female athletes across events based on information provided by nbcolympics.com. These female athletes are surely a good reference point in terms of body image and health. As you can see from the graph below, most of these athletes would not be able to shop at Brandy Melville. Perhaps we should focus on a standard that controls for health, and allows us to embrace the variability that comes with that.
The counter-argument is that getting upset about a retailer that only offers smaller sizes is just as bad as fat-shaming (it's skinny-shaming). But this argument is fundamentally flawed since the sizes offered at Brandy Melville are offered at every major retailer, these smaller clients are not being excluded from any store. Size small (or extra small) is not average - it's in the lefthand tail of the distribution - so only a small proportion of the teenage-girl population can fit in the sizes at Brandy Melville and those who don't may go to extreme or unhealthy lengths to do so. Also, until people feel bad about not being able to shop at a plus-size store, I will refrain from giving the skinny-shaming argument much weight.
This article also reminded me of another article I read recently about "reverse" photoshopping. Accordingly, photo editors reverse the negative side effects of under-eating and extreme thinness by making models look "bigger and healthier" (erasing protruding rib cages, filling in sunken cheeks, adding color to graying skin). A creative director at Vogue magazine is quoted in the article as saying, "Thanks to retouching, our readers... never saw the horrible, hungry downside of skinny. That these underweight girls didn't look glamorous in the flesh. Their skeletal bodies, dull, thinning hair, spots and dark circles under their eyes were magicked away by technology, leaving only the allure of coltish limbs and Bambi eyes." Again, people may suggest this is just shaming those who are "naturally" skinny - but the point is that this ideal we present to women is not natural - it's only achieved through extremes and unhealthy habits, yet all of that is swept under the rug. This means that women are pursuing an unnatural ideal under the false pretenses that it is achievable, normal, and healthy.
During the 2014 Winter Olympics, I made a quick scatter plot of height and weight for the U.S. female athletes across events based on information provided by nbcolympics.com. These female athletes are surely a good reference point in terms of body image and health. As you can see from the graph below, most of these athletes would not be able to shop at Brandy Melville. Perhaps we should focus on a standard that controls for health, and allows us to embrace the variability that comes with that.
Data source: nbcolympics.com.
Note: Figure skaters are excluded from the analysis as no weight information was provided for any figure skating competitors.
Note: Figure skaters are excluded from the analysis as no weight information was provided for any figure skating competitors.
RSS Feed
