We *Still* Need To Talk About Size Inclusive Dressing on the Red Carpet
How is it that one designer’s name continues to come up when we hear about red carpet size-inclusive fashion? Thank Beyoncé that we have Christian Siriano because he is doing the bare minimum – making clothes for all sizes of glorious women – and somehow that’s the most.
Who wouldn’t be over-the-moon-delighted scrambling-at-the-chance to dress these women as they promote their splendid work looking fabulous? Press coverage hunty.
I caught wind of this latest story involving Bebe Rexha and this time the feeling that washed over me was something more than anger. You’d think the next stop I’d spend time at emotionally is in the even more devastating place that is, “I’m disappointed in you,” land. Nope. I’m further past that. Now I’m firmly in a, “You’re so stupid,” dystopian horrorville.
Who am I raging against? Every designer and brand that refuses to design, stock, and sell clothing above a size four. We know that the average American woman is a size fourteen. Many designers are not only NOT accommodating the ten sizes up to the average, they too are missing out on every woman that isn’t bound by a single digit number in the back of a garment. The number should only serve as a starting off point to finding the right fit. Maybe you’re up, maybe you’re down; find what flatters and that’s it.
I have things to say:
Of course this refusal to provide is gross.
This is beyond exclusion; I think it’s discrimination.
Aside from all of the important humanity issues – and I don’t mean to diminish the shitty experience of hearing the deplorable statement that, “this brand is not for you,” – this is bad for business.
Furthermore, it’s implicitly stupid. If the average size is more curvaceous than your product inventory, you are losing out on potential customers. Perhaps the thought that it’s too hard to scale for more sizes or you want to keep the aesthetic singular – both bullshit excuses – may have gone unscathed in the past, it’s 2019. Figure it out, brands because we, the consumer, are watching. Can we challenge all brands to be inclusive or suffer the cost?
Dolce & Gabbana are rightfully suffering because of their disgusting, racist remarks before a multimillion-dollar presentation in China. The stories put on blast, thank you social media, are helping to cancel their brand. The show was literally cancelled. That’s an haute couture plate of sorry not sorry for you old boys.
Do you remember DSquared2’s not so long-ago glorification of colonization #DSquaw collection? I sure do. It was horrendously appropriated, racist, and thus, it met some backlash. Digging in, as learned that there was no consultation with the communities they were “inspired” by to ask, “How does this make you feel? Are we missing something here? Is this okay?” Duh. What were they thinking? Oh, wait; they weren’t? Shocking.
I refuse to let the 2011 recorded, charged, tried, and convicted anti-Semitic remarks that lost John Galliano his Dior job go. I can’t. I won’t. I am filled with disgust that he, a few years later, was overwhelmingly warmly welcomed back into the fashion world and has been leading the Maison Martin Margiela brand since. This is not okay.
Unfortunately, the only way to make this ridiculousness stop is by blacklisting these brands. Stay far, far away. Before you search, click, hashtag, post, or buy, know what the brand you’re supporting by those aforementioned actions stands for. What’s the good, bad, and ugly? Double check that through your personal standards and take a position. Never forget that your eyeballs are worth money. I urge you to be a careful, informed consumer. If inclusion matters to you, let’s let these pricks who won’t buck up willow away into obscurity faster than our 2018 internet crushes.
Finishing on an optimistic note, let’s not lose perspective. It is just as – perhaps even more - important to celebrate the good. Let’s enjoy the fabulous work of Christian Siriano and the wonderfully talented people he has dressed over his career.