Monday, August 11, 2003
Does anyone in the fashion industry or the media remember what "plus size" actually means? I'm really tired of women who are size 8 or 10 or 12 being called "plus size," because, dammit, they aren't. As I recall, the term arose back when women's sizing went like this:
If you went into your basic women's clothing store or women's section of a department store, sizes 2-4 were "small"; 6-8 were "medium"; 10-12 were "large." You'd find those everywhere. Sometimes you'd find 14, which was "extra large." And very rarely, you'd find 16, which was "extra extra large." But usually, for sizes 16 and up, you'd have to go to The Special Store. And that16 and upwas "plus size."
Since then, most manufacturers have adjusted their size charts, so now small is 4-6, medium is 8-10, large is 12-14, and extra large is 16; sometimes large is even 14-16. So now "plus size" is generally 18 and up.
Which, you will notice, if you are capable of comprehending Arabic numerals, is bigger than 8 or 10 or 12. Okay?
I suppose, since regular-women's-clothing models are four or six sizes lower than the women the clothes are intended for (size 0 models for size 4-6 women), it's only consistent for plus-size models to be four or six sizes lower than actual plus-size women. But still: Emme is not frickin' plus size. Steven Tyler's other daughter (the non-Liv one) is not frickin' plus size. Anna Nicole Smith...well, she's very, very far into plus size territory by now, but I don't even want to think of her modeling anything.
Anyway. I know the fashion industry and the media aren't anchored in reality; and I suppose it's good that they've noticed that there are women in the world who are larger than Jennifer Aniston; but still...can't they be frickin' consistent in their inaccuracy?
[ at 11:57 AM • by Abby • permalink • ]