Fantastic Article about "real" sized brides!

[gwendolyn]

Date: 9/11/2009 7:15:10 PM
Author: musey

Date: 9/11/2009 1:32:05 PM

Author: gwendolyn


And for what it's worth, whenever the term 'real' is used in reference to women who are larger than average, to me that isn't done to belittle smaller women but rather put them on the pedestal of 'supermodel' level. To me, 'real' equals 'obviously flawed.'

That's what it means in my world, which of late has been casting. 'Real' is the exact term that casting directors use to communicate that they're looking for someone who is either plain looking or on the larger side. Although, it's meant to be 'real' versus what most actors are (or try to be) - which is in absolutely amazing shape and far more beautiful than average. So it's not grounded in reality. For them, 'real' usually means larger than a size 4 and not pretty enough to join the cast of America's Next Top Model.


A bit of a digression, but I just thought that it was interesting/coincidental that you brought that up.

The reason I brought it up was half to do with that (I have two cousins and a friend in the film biz), and half to do with the fact that the vast majority of the people you see on TV, the movies or in magazines are very, very slim (disproportionally so), and that they in no way correlate to the size of the "average" woman out in other job fields. Although many people are fine with never looking like their favourite actress or supermodel, others feel that's the way they are *supposed* to look (like, most of the guys I was ever interested in, and then, subsequently, I also felt that way). We as a society have moved away from sex symbols who aren't at the smallest end of the size chart--we went from Marilyn Monroe, to Twiggy, to Kate Moss. If anything, "too skinny" became en vogue, making plus sizes even more unacceptable by society.

And although it is no doubt frustrating to go into a shop and not find your size, it is another thing altogether to go into a store and not find your size *anywhere* because they just don't make things that big. Often the salespeople are extremely condescending (I have been laughed at, asked, "Why are YOU in HERE?" been told I should leave because they have nothing for me there, ignored when asking for help, etc.), as if it's impossible that I am shopping for a gift for a friend. It's like the place stops functioning as a store and suddenly becomes a private club and I am not invited. Why wouldn't they want my money? Is it because it's more fun to laugh at the fat girl who got lost and found her way into the shop with clothes that are way too small for her? Is it because they find it embarrassing to have someone like *me* in their shop, walking around with a bag of their stuff? Do I not fit the image well enough? I really have no idea, but this isn't based on one or two freak occurrences. This has happened to me dozens of times, so clearly there must be something behind it.

People come in all shapes and sizes - naturally or otherwise. I am a US 2-4 (depending on brand), and I do not think of myself as 'tiny' or a 'waif,' I think of myself as average. However, the sizing system (at least here, can't speak for other countries) does not accommodate me as average, it accommodates me as being very much on the 'small' side. So where does that leave the many, many women who are naturally much smaller than I am? It's helpful for women who are on the larger end of the spectrum, but at least they have the specialty stores referenced in this thread. How do you think the 'real' public would react if specialty stores started cropping up to serve specifically the very thin population? I shudder to think.

I don't think that anyone has a problem with specialty stores; they exist for a multitude of products, not just clothes, and if there is a market for it, then more power to them for offering better choices and size ranges. I honestly do not believe anyone would have a problem in the slightest.

Everyone's discriminated against, but I would venture to guess that those who fall into the plus size range get it a lot more and take it a lot harder than those who fall below the size chart (and again, do so naturally). I'd be lying if I said I don't take issue with terms like 'real women' and 'curvy' being applied plus-sized women - as though to imply that my physique is somehow not 'womanly' or 'curvy.' A big part of me wishes we could all be honest about things instead of shifting labels around to give them new meaning (there was a time when 'curvy' meant 36-24-36). At the same time, I understand where the impulse to shift labels comes from - and I'm not about to cry over someone thinking I'm 'too thin' (not that that really happens

).

Meaning that instead of using the word "curvy" to denote larger women as well as hour-glass shaped women (which it still can and does refer to, in my experience--they don't have to be mutually exclusive unless you make it an 'us vs. them' type of thing), you'd rather us be called what exactly? Apologies if this isn't how you meant to be interpreted, but when you say you wish you could be honest *instead of* shifting labels, it sounds as if you've got some nasty words in reserve for larger women that you refrain from sharing for the sake of politeness. For the record, I think being referred to as a "real" woman is a bit stupid and "curvy" doesn't really accurately describe me because my weight is in my waistline, making me sadly almost curveless, but if it's between those labels and "big fat blob" (for example), I'll take the former since having neutral or positive labels is more pleasant than some people's truth.

So "curvy" is the nice way of saying what then, exactly?

It is okay to be plus sized, just as it is okay to be very thin. Everyone has reasons for being the size they are - and sometimes appearances can be deceiving: not every plus-sized person inhales McDonald's and not every thin woman starves herself. Generalizations and stereotypes are often founded in truth, but it's important to realize how harmful it is to apply them across the board to any one type of person.

Indeed.

 

[Black Jade]

Great thread--I think it''s got people thinking.
Just want to repeat that its important not to get so sucked in/depressed by our own issues that we can''t see that others have difficulties too.
As stated before, my size 24 mother has trouble buying clothes. and I sympathize and help her.
My friends who are TRUE petites have the SAME problems.
I think people can be deceived by going into stores and seeing all the clothes marked with petite size numbers, which are actually now medium-sized.
It''s no comfort to be go in and see racks of clothes labelled 2 and 4 etc. (which you used to wear and you haven''t lost weight) and they are all now swimming on you. Sometimes they can be taken in (at great expense, unless you have a friend like me who sews, which is how I know about this problem) but a lot of times they just can''t. so what do you do? Shop in the kiddie department? It''s a possiblity sometimes but the styles are hardly what a 50 year old woman wants to wear and the quality of fabric is awful.
I, who am actually a medium sized woman have had the experience now TWICE of having to buy a kid sized shirt because of crazy sizing. as I said before, someone 5 ft 3 and 130 lbs should not be in this situation when there are plenty of REAL women who are even CURVY women (Yes, a 29-20-30 figure would count as curvy) who are like, 5 ft and 100 lbs. This is small-but it is not abnormal.
If you check it out, you will see that actually clothing stores catering to petites and petite sections on stores have closed down like crazy in the past few years--in very large numbers. Plus-sized stores, on the other hand are doing fine.
And it''s just as mean to tell people that they are anorexic or that they should eat a sandwich or that they actually really don''t have a problem as it is to say and do mean things to larger women.
(I was very humiliated buying the youth sized shirt by the way. the saleslady didn''t intend to be mean, but when someone looks at you and says, You? You could wear a kid size, it doesn''t feel good.

 

[meresal]

Musey, we aren't talking sizes 8-10-12... were talking more like 18-22-24's.

Most girl in these sizes can't even put on a size 16 and have it look like a normal dress. It gathers aroudn the waist and it usually doesn't zip up, which makes it very hard to even see what the shape is going to look like. It is extremely dissheartening for the bride and for *most* bridal gown sales associates. I knew what our dress inventory was, and I can tell you, the worst thing is to tell a bride the highest you have is an 18 in only a few samples, and if she would like to "try" that since we don't have anything above an 18 (which is actually like a street 14/16).

I worked for a designer that was never there and wanted nothing to do with any of my or the other managers opinions. Unlike the author of that article, I can assure you, that the designer stores DO NOT pay the same price for samples that the bride pays for her dress. Our dresses would sell for anywhere from $1200-$4000, and not one of the samples was more than $500. The thing is... EVERY dress can be pinned on sinched in front of a mirror, however, NO dress can be let out so that the bride can see what it would look like on her.

The owners and designers of my salon were vietnamese. They had absolutely no clue of what the normal american consumer needed or actually wore, and they didn't care either. A majority of the dresses in our shop were 2/4/6 (which we had one of every dress in each size), and to be honest the most tried on sizes were 6/8/10(these were about 80% of the styles), unless the bride was on the much shorter side.

Unless you go to David's Bridal or the like, you will not find a vast selection of dresses over the size of 18/20.

Like I said in my first post, this author did write about a legitimate issue, she just went about completely wrong. Which actually helps no one.

 

[gwendolyn]

Incidentally, my comments were meant to voice one experience, one perspective, from one end of the size spectrum. At no point have I said, suggested or hinted that very petite women do not have a problem with shopping or should fatten up for any reason; I would not presume to tell them what to do, as I know very well how crappy that feels and I am not a hypocrite.

I do not wish to fight or argue with anyone. I did not think anything I said could be interpreted as argumentative, but just in case, I felt the need to state the above.

 

[musey]

Date: 9/12/2009 4:53:06 AM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 9/11/2009 7:15:10 PM
Author: musey
People come in all shapes and sizes - naturally or otherwise. I am a US 2-4 (depending on brand), and I do not think of myself as 'tiny' or a 'waif,' I think of myself as average. However, the sizing system (at least here, can't speak for other countries) does not accommodate me as average, it accommodates me as being very much on the 'small' side. So where does that leave the many, many women who are naturally much smaller than I am? It's helpful for women who are on the larger end of the spectrum, but at least they have the specialty stores referenced in this thread. How do you think the 'real' public would react if specialty stores started cropping up to serve specifically the very thin population? I shudder to think.

I don't think that anyone has a problem with specialty stores; they exist for a multitude of products, not just clothes, and if there is a market for it, then more power to them for offering better choices and size ranges. I honestly do not believe anyone would have a problem in the slightest.

I remember a store called 1-3-5... or something like that... that only carried sizes 1, 3, and 5. It is/was a chain. It opened up in my hometown when I was still in gradeschool, and there was a big outpouring of complaints from the community over their discrimination against "real women." It stayed open for a year or two actually, but then disappeared... I don't know if it exists anymore?

And that was for standard sizes, I can't imagine how a store that caters to people who fall below the current size spectrum (0 and below) would be received. Unless they marketed it toward a certain ethnic group, like Asian women, who do tend to have a smaller bone structure and be thinner naturally than, say, Caucasians. Maybe that would make it 'okay' because it's like saying that they're supposed to be smaller, so we shouldn't get all up in arms about perpetuating eating disorders? However, they'd then lose an entire demographic (or because people from other cultural backgrounds might not want to shop there, or think automatically that the designs they have won't be right for them.

Everyone's discriminated against, but I would venture to guess that those who fall into the plus size range get it a lot more and take it a lot harder than those who fall below the size chart (and again, do so naturally). I'd be lying if I said I don't take issue with terms like 'real women' and 'curvy' being applied plus-sized women - as though to imply that my physique is somehow not 'womanly' or 'curvy.' A big part of me wishes we could all be honest about things instead of shifting labels around to give them new meaning (there was a time when 'curvy' meant 36-24-36). At the same time, I understand where the impulse to shift labels comes from - and I'm not about to cry over someone thinking I'm 'too thin' (not that that really happens

).

Meaning that instead of using the word 'curvy' to denote larger women as well as hour-glass shaped women (which it still can and does refer to, in my experience--they don't have to be mutually exclusive unless you make it an 'us vs. them' type of thing), you'd rather us be called what exactly? Apologies if this isn't how you meant to be interpreted, but when you say you wish you could be honest *instead of* shifting labels, it sounds as if you've got some nasty words in reserve for larger women that you refrain from sharing for the sake of politeness. For the record, I think being referred to as a 'real' woman is a bit stupid and 'curvy' doesn't really accurately describe me because my weight is in my waistline, making me sadly almost curveless, but if it's between those labels and 'big fat blob' (for example), I'll take the former since having neutral or positive labels is more pleasant than some people's truth.

So 'curvy' is the nice way of saying what then, exactly?

Oh Gwen, I'm sorry

I really did not mean it in that way, at least I don't think I did

It's hard to know when I'm experimenting with thinning my filter, I'm just saying how I feel and not thinking about the psychology behind it.

For me and how I think, labels are mutually exclusive - that is their purpose. What is the point of using a label unless it conjures an image of the thing being labeled? When dealing with casting, people use such labels and we have to know exactly what the jargon means, or we'll have some angry casting directors calling and asking why we wasted their time with "gorgeous" when they asked for "pretty," or "plain" when they asked for "nerdy." Labels serve a purpose in our lives (in some areas more than others), for better or worse. If they ask for curvy, I know that at least in that world they're talking about voluptuous, as in Marilyn Monroe, Salma Hayek, Kate Moss (just kidding on that last one

). When they want plus size women, they say "plus size" or "larger," generally speaking.

Just for the sake of illustration, I've been called everything from "tiny" to "chubby" in real life, but the label I fit into in the casting world is "average."


My favorite aunt is and always has been a plus sized woman... I would imagine (though I don't know) usually larger than a 26-28. She's always proudly referred to herself as a "big, beautiful woman." When I was young, it really bothered me because I felt as though she was berating herself with this "big" label. I finally asked her about it one day and she said, "Women come in all sizes - why shouldn't I be proud of my own?" She objected to being called curvy, because she said it took away from her beautiful hourglass-shaped daughter. I guess I've kinda had that logic stuck in my head ever since.

Most of the women in my family are plus-sized. Some of them are sensitive about it, some are not. I love them all - and I would never, not in 5 million years, stoop to 'reserving nasty words' for some of the most important women in my life. That is not how I think or behave.

I understand objection to the word "big," but when I say I wish we could be honest, I mean that I wish we could use accurate words without negative feelings/intentions attached (and yes I understand that that's a tall order, and that's why I used "I wish" and not "we should). It's okay to be big, just as it's okay to be small. I know I'm opening myself up to flaming by throwing this word out there, unfortunately

but it's the word I know, the one I've been asked to use.

 

[gwendolyn]

Date: 9/12/2009 12:45:49 PM
Author: musey
I remember a store called 1-3-5... or something like that... that only carried sizes 1, 3, and 5. It is/was a chain. It opened up in my hometown when I was still in gradeschool, and there was a big outpouring of complaints from the community over their discrimination against 'real women.' It stayed open for a year or two actually, but then disappeared... I don't know if it exists anymore?

Do you mean 5*7*9? That's still going strong, and therefore wasn't complained out of existence many other places if that's the store you're thinking of: 5*7*9

And that was for standard sizes, I can't imagine how a store that caters to people who fall below the current size spectrum (0 and below) would be received. Unless they marketed it toward a certain ethnic group, like Asian women, who do tend to have a smaller bone structure and be thinner naturally than, say, Caucasians. Maybe that would make it 'okay' because it's like saying that they're supposed to be smaller, so we shouldn't get all up in arms about perpetuating eating disorders? However, they'd then lose an entire demographic (or because people from other cultural backgrounds might not want to shop there, or think automatically that the designs they have won't be right for them.

Again, in my experience, people aren't offended by specialist stores. Where I grew up (Baltimore area), there were petite stores (including 5*7*9 as well as others) and one or two plus size stores--with clothes designed for people of retirement age, but I didn't have the luxury of being picky until Lane Bryant revamped itself with a 'younger' image--can you imagine wearing cheap, brash old women's clothes to school as a middle schooler because that's the only sort of store that carries clothes that fit you? Yeah, not fun.

Oh Gwen, I'm sorry

I really did not mean it in that way, at least I don't think I did

It's hard to know when I'm experimenting with thinning my filter, I'm just saying how I feel and not thinking about the psychology behind it.

...ok.

For me and how I think, labels are mutually exclusive - that is their purpose. What is the point of using a label unless it conjures an image of the thing being labeled? When dealing with casting, people use such labels and we have to know exactly what the jargon means, or we'll have some angry casting directors calling and asking why we wasted their time with 'gorgeous' when they asked for 'pretty,' or 'plain' when they asked for 'nerdy.' Labels serve a purpose in our lives (in some areas more than others), for better or worse. If they ask for curvy, I know that at least in that world they're talking about voluptuous, as in Marilyn Monroe, Salma Hayek, Kate Moss (just kidding on that last one

). When they want plus size women, they say 'plus size' or 'larger,' generally speaking.

This is probably where I disagree with you most strongly. For you in your field, labels make things easier by acting as a shorthand; instead of describing what look you want, you just use a label. I work in the field of special needs education, got my master's last year at Cambridge and spent AGES talking about the long-lasting damage that labels cause on students with disabilities--going so far as to say that the label of being "disabled" itself is harmful as it suggests that people are "not able" when many times they are perfectly able and just process things differently. The US still uses the phrase "mental retardation" as a label even though most of the rest of the world has changed the label to something much less demeaning (it is called "learning difficulties" in the UK) because of the negative stereotypes of the "retarded" label. Labels are something that I fight every day at work; to me, the benefits of convenience and time-saving are vastly outweighed by the harm (social, emotional, educational) they inflict, the stigma they create, the limited choices kids with them have--so, as a rule, I do whatever possible to deliberately avoid and discourage labels.

Just for the sake of illustration, I've been called everything from 'tiny' to 'chubby' in real life, but the label I fit into in the casting world is 'average.'

My favorite aunt is and always has been a plus sized woman... I would imagine (though I don't know) usually larger than a 26-28. She's always proudly referred to herself as a 'big, beautiful woman.' When I was young, it really bothered me because I felt as though she was berating herself with this 'big' label. I finally asked her about it one day and she said, 'Women come in all sizes - why shouldn't I be proud of my own?' She objected to being called curvy, because she said it took away from her beautiful hourglass-shaped daughter. I guess I've kinda had that logic stuck in my head ever since.

Most of the women in my family are plus-sized. Some of them are sensitive about it, some are not. I love them all - and I would never, not in 5 million years, stoop to 'reserving nasty words' for some of the most important women in my life. That is not how I think or behave.

I understand objection to the word 'big,' but when I say I wish we could be honest, I mean that I wish we could use accurate words without negative feelings/intentions attached (and yes I understand that that's a tall order, and that's why I used 'I wish' and not 'we should). It's okay to be big, just as it's okay to be small. I know I'm opening myself up to flaming by throwing this word out there, unfortunately

but it's the word I know, the one I've been asked to use.

The word "big" does not offend me. I sometimes think of myself as a BBW (big, beautiful woman), which is a term sometimes used by men who specifically are looking to date larger women. But the problem (in my opinion) with a word like "big" is that, when spoken by someone who (unlike yourself) assumes the worst of fat people and will stereotype that we're all giant, lazy, stupid slobs, the word "big" quickly spins out to: giant, huge, enormous, whale. It doesn't stay at just "big." As dumb as they may sound to anyone with a brain realizing that larger women are not the only "curvy" women or "real" women, words like "curvy" and "real" can't spin out of control into size-bashing. Not without some real effort.

Of course, people who are going to make fun of others for being large are probably going to do it regardless, just as people who want to make fun of people with lower IQs are still sometimes going to be called "retards," but the regular, prevalent usage of different, more respectful terms for them can and has in the past signified a significant, long-lasting change in society's perception of those people. If you wanted studies to prove that, I could probably dig them up from my notes from school last year; it was one of the most interesting things we discussed all year.

 

[merrymunky]

Gwen...I've hollared at you in the hangout (or I am about to because I don't want to get off topic here).

I didn't realise you work in special needs education. SO DO I!!

Come compare notes with me in the hangout! (gah this is when I long for private messaging!)

 

[swimmer]

The author told us more about herself than the topic at hand. I just hope it was therapeutic for her.

ETA: love you Gwen!

 

[Haven]

Gwen and Musey's discussion about labels is very interesting to me.

Gwen--There is also a lot of research in my field (reading and literacy) about the labels we give to students, or those they give to themselves, and the findings sound very similar to what you described. If a student is labeled "honors" or "accelerated" teachers expect much more out of him, consider him to be smarter and more capable, and he also thinks the same of himself. On the flip side, if a student is labeled "remedial" or "at-risk" or some other term that denotes lower ability, both the teachers and the student will expect less from him.

I imagine that this is true for each of us as individuals, as well. We probably adhere to the labels that we give ourselves, and those that others bestow upon us, more than we think we do.

As for the label "big", I use that for myself, and it is an accurate and benign label, at least in my eyes. I'm just shy of 5'10", so I am definitely not small. I currently weigh 165 lbs, and I wear a US size 10, two summers ago I wore a size 6, and I was a big person even then. (DH and I just saw Julie and Julia last night and DH said "That's what we look like!" during the scene with Julia child dancing with her much smaller husband, who even called her his "big sprig" quite affectionately, I might add.)

I think that a lot of the hurt feelings that surrounding certain labels are due less to the choice of words, and more to the intent behind them. I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference between someone who is trying to be descriptive versus someone who is trying to be hurtful.

 

[gwendolyn]

Haven, pursuant to the label discussion, I just posted in a thread in Hangout that MM started about special educational needs. One of the most interesting things I learned in grad school about labeling was that the Scots are ahead of most of us--they don't even call it "special needs" anymore because they feel that in and of itself is derogatory. Scotland now just has "additional needs" educational support, for any and all students to use when they need it. That way, students who have temporary situations (such as a broken home, illness, death in the family) can now benefit from educational supports the way students with longer lasting or irreversible conditions do under the label of 'special' needs. By taking the 'special' away, they hope to reduce the stigma that follows students through school since the educational supports are available to all students.

Only time will tell how successful they are, but I certainly like the effort they are making! I also have the optimistic hope that changes like that start a paradigm shift and really end up making a big difference, but that may not happen in our lifetimes. But as long as it happens...

ETA: love you too, swimmer

 

[Black Jade]

Interesting discussion about labels.
People CAN judge by them--and be wrong.
I teach Chinese language sometimes as a volunteer/service thing in public schools (I did this in college until I decided to stay home with kids). I''ll never forget the time that I went in to teach this class and they were very good at it--super-intelligent, I thought. (This was 8th graders). It turned out that they were the ''slow'' class. The teacher had done an experiment and given them to me, to see how they would perform in a subject that everyone knew was difficult, with a teacher that had ''t been informed that they were supposed to be deficient, and thus did not have low expectations or look down on them.
However, one does need some descriptive terms sometimes and it can get difficult when people are overly sensitive (which I am not saying that anyone who has posted here is). For instance, I am a lady of a certain age (52). I think that I can reasonably refer to myself to as middle-aged by this point--after all how likely am I to live to be 104? However, I''m not allowed to do this--people literally jump all over me if I do (especially people the same age). It''s a bit stressful--it makes me feel that getting older must be considered to be really really terrible, since we can''t dare to use honest words. I mean--mature? I''ve been mature since I was 21, actually, by what I think that word means. Except that now what it means is ''old''--everyone knows that when you say a '' mature'' person, you actually mean someone over 50. It''s the same with larger people, in my opinion. I don''t feel that there is anything so terrible about being larger that it has to go into code words. I understand that you must be careful not to be insulting. But in my experience, when you start to use codes, people know that there is something really, really wrong with them--so wrong that you ca ''t even speak honestly about it.

I was thinking a little more about this issue as smaller women are defined. It used to be that ''skinny'' was an insult. I can actually remember back in the day when women would resent being referred to in this way. Now its a huge compliment. Women compliment each other by saying ''you''re so skinny'' and ''you''re a stick''--and usually use these words to refer actually to women on the slender side of average. Not women who are really truly thin. So they have to find some other to describe people who really (they think) are too thin (which could be anything. To many women ''too thin'' only means ''thinner than me.'' ) Hence the horrific overuse of the terms ''anorexic'' and ''waif'' and even references to drug abusers. How casual this kind of talk has gotten and how people do not even realize what they are saying, was very evident in the article referred to in the OP. I know that hurtful words are used towards larger people also, but it is somewhat less politically correct to do this'' in my experie ce, people who wish to vent towards people who they think are too large (which again, very often only means ''larger than me.") is to start talking about their terrible health, whether they are actually unhealthy or not. My mother, for instance is a 79 who can outwalk most 30 years old, climbs trees and does heavy gardening daily for fun. She weighs somewhere around 300 lbs. This woman is not unhealthy by any reasonable standard. Nor does she look bad--she''s a pretty 79 year old and carries her weight on a tall big-boned body in a well-arranged kind of way. However, I have heard all kinds of people tell her how concerned they are about her size, ''for her own sake''. When actually what they clearly mean is that 300 lb people are unaesthetic to them no matter what, just because they are bigger.
She eats a LOT. My mother can put a lot of food away. She LIKES her food. She does not eat potato chips or drink soda but she will eat a great deal of wheat bread, brown rice, fruits, vegetables and meat--she is the person who taught me to make healthy food choices. She will eat seconds, thirds, sometimes fourths--so what? She isn''t taking it out of any starving persons mouth and she has no issues like high blood pressure diabetes or whatever. I, however, got diabetic at 155 lbs, which is why I am down to 130 lbs nowadays. We have a different metabolism or were meant to be different or something--I can''t explain it. I just know its that way. So I do what I have to do for me, and she does what works for her. Her great-grandmother lived to be 100 and her mother until 88 and they were big, but healthy women like her.
On the other hand, I'' m not a child and nor am I child-like because I''m 5 ft 3 with small bones. I''m not ''a little doll''. I''m not even actually ''a tiny little thing'' (there are plenty of grown women smaller than me who still are grown women). I think it rubs a lot of petite women the wrong way to be compared to children in any way because it happens a LOT--and to have to wear kiddie clothes is a double insult I think for that reason. Think about it. No adult wants to be minimized in this way and to have their power as an adult (figuratively) taken away.

 

[princesss]

Gwen, great posts. Every time I try to post on this it just comes out jumbled, so I''m going to keep my thoughts to myself right now, but your posts have been wonderful and very informative for those of us who have never really had to think about it before.

 

[musey]

Just to quickly answer the question of the store... No, it was 1 3 5 (at least those were the sizes, but I think it was the name), not 5 7 9. I can see how the latter would not have many issues, as they are closer to "average" (whatever that means anymore) sizes. Your experience is your experience, mine is mine - neither is more correct or valid than the other. I did not lie about the store experience just for the sake of argument.

Gwen, I'm not sure what to say other than that I'm sorry for offending you, however unintentionally. I do not feel as though you understand what I'm saying or the intentions behind my words - which of course is understandable with such a hot-button topic, especially when it's one that's so personal to you, as you said. I've mentioned in other threads that I have much less emotion attached to topics like weight/size than most people do, and I still have trouble keeping that in mind when trying to discuss this stuff in a philosophical (rather than personal) way. ETA: Exacerbated by the fact that I really do not see this label usage (in real life, work is different) where I am, so when I talk about the use of labels it's not in the context of real-world interaction.

I'm just going to bow out of the back-and-forth, because it seems as though outside issues are being applied to my posts, and my hole just gets deeper every time I reply. There have been some assumptions made about my character and intentions that are way off and actually extremely hurtful. It would be silly, no matter how strong the impulse is, for me to go into detail about my background in an attempt to "defend" myself or clear up misconceptions, because in a discussion like this, it's the concepts and broad ideas that matter, not my personal character or behavior patterns.

 

[merrymunky]

This is probably one of the reasons I have stayed out of this thread to a large degree. I made a comment about the affinity I felt with Gwen over this topic matter, being a girl who is also a BBW!

It IS hard to be referred to as a big lady. That in itself to me seems to be a pre-conceived, negative judgement. I am JUST a lady.

I have the same thoughts, feelings and emotions as a slender woman. Yet I am not treated in the same manner. I am treated by most strangers like something lesser than themselves. The looks, the comments. If someone was going to refer to me but didn't know me I could guarantee they would say "The fat lady" rather than "the lady in the black top over there", or "The lady with pigtails" or whatever distinguising feature others would be referred to by.

I know from experience that it works the other way too. I once worked with a woman who was almost 6 feet tall and extremely thin. She was called all manner of derogatory names and had many a comment made about anorexia, drugs etc. In fact she had a big appetite! She was just naturally thin, just as I am naturally larger framed.

I often find myself enraged by comments made at me, looks thrown my way etc.

To be honest, gong back to the original article, I did not find it that bad, although I did note the derogatory tone it used towards those fortunate thin people. It works both ways. Plus sized people want to be thought of as just people. Very slender people also just want to be referred to as just people. NOTHING is average. NOTHING is normal.

Diversity is what makes this world SUCH an interesting place to inhabit. It's just a shame that we can't embrace difference, be it weight, height, race, skin colour etc.

 

[CNOS128]

1-3-5 was the name of the store in Mean Girls! And Regina George was eating the Kalteen Swedish weight-gain bars, so her size 5 dress was too small when she tried it on for the Plastics. And then the sales associate had to inform her that 5 was the largest they carried and she should try Sears! The horror!

It's funny because it's true? (ETA: I mean, that is, that the sales associate was obnoxious -- and made someone feel 'fat' because she couldn't fit into the 5...)

 

[Haven]

Date: 9/12/2009 6:43:36 PM
Author: merrymunky
[ . . . ]
I have the same thoughts, feelings and emotions as a slender woman. Yet I am not treated in the same manner. I am treated by most strangers like something lesser than themselves. The looks, the comments. If someone was going to refer to me but didn''t know me I could guarantee they would say ''The fat lady'' rather than ''the lady in the black top over there'', or ''The lady with pigtails'' or whatever distinguising feature others would be referred to by. [ . . . ]

merry--I''m so sorry you are treated poorly by others. What you said right here reminds me of how I felt when I had acne as a young adult. I began getting pretty bad acne when I was in college, and I felt that people treated me differently because of the acne, that was all they saw. I''m not saying acne and weight are the same thing, so please nobody flame me here, I''m just saying that I can relate to what merry''s saying here.

I apologize if I offended you by using the example of me not being upset if someone refers to me as "big." I was just trying to illustrate that I see a difference between labels people use to be nasty, and those people use to be descriptive. I understand that some may find "big" to be a negative label, and I didn''t mean to be dismissive about others'' feelings by saying that it doesn''t bother me, personally. I completely understand how it might be a hurtful label to some, as well.

 

[musey]

Date: 9/12/2009 6:50:16 PM
Author: TheBigT
1-3-5 was the name of the store in Mean Girls! And Regina George was eating the Kalteen Swedish weight-gain bars, so her size 5 dress was too small when she tried it on for the Plastics. And then the sales associate had to inform her that 5 was the largest they carried and she should try Sears! The horror!

It''s funny because it''s true? (ETA: I mean, that is, that the sales associate was obnoxious -- and made someone feel ''fat'' because she couldn''t fit into the 5...)

LOL - I remember that!! Too funny. Yeah, I got attitude at a fitting recently over my hips and thighs being "so big" that I couldn''t fit anything they wanted to use on me

It seems to be a chronic problem for many who work in the clothing business - it''s easy for them to forget that you''re a real person and not a mannequin to fit their artistic fashion vision.

 

[gwendolyn]

musey, I know you don't want to do any more debating and that's fine--this isn't meant to continue that. I just wanted to say a couple of things, namely that I don't think bad things of you. Part of the reason you're comment about wanting to 'drop the shifting of labels and just be honest' comment stung a bit and suggested possible hidden nastiness is because of the way the sentence was phrased, not because I think you're a nasty person--that's why I even preemptively apologized in case it wasn't what you meant, because I consider you to be a kind, intelligent, thoughtful woman and thought there may have been a miscommunication.

When you replied and said you didn't mean it how it sounded, or maybe you did mean it how it sounded--you weren't sure--I wasn't really sure how to respond to that, hence just the "...ok" from me. If you answered that way just because you didn't know if the word "big" was nasty (and therefore didn't know if I would consider your honest terms to be nasty), it is not, so no worries.

But I am not sure that is what you meant--I think it probably was, but am not sure myself, and that possibly clouded my tone so that I did not respond as understandingly as I could have. There was no intentional defamation of character.

Apologies for getting the store wrong--I would be interested in hearing what it is called, just to see if it ever popped up where I used to live, if you remember the name.

Lastly, related to the store topic, I just did a quick Google search for petite clothing stores in Maryland (where I lived most of my life in the states) to see if one with numbers in the name other than 5*7*9 popped up and found (in addition to the petite-only shops) a few stores that specialize in both petite and plus size clothing. That made me smile.

 

[ts44]

I am a street size 6 and I just went wedding dress shopping for the first time. I went to two stores, about the same pricepoints and even carrying most of the same designers, in two towns that have similar demographics. In the first shop, all of their dresses were size 12-14 and they clamped me into most of the dresses. In the second shop, all of their dresses were size 4-8 and I could barely squeeze half of them past my hips. The other half I couldn''t even get on! I much preferred the 12-14 shop, not because I felt psychologically "smaller" shopping there, but because it''s easier to see what a dress looks like when you can actually get it on. I will not be returning to the second store, but I have another appointment scheduled at the first for this week. I read that 4-8 samples are the norm, so I sincerely wish that more bridal shops carried larger sizes as samples. Not because of any political acknowledgement of size or in the interest of "realness" or any other social statement, but just because they might make a lot more sales!