Disclaimer: I know there are few things people who have problems with weight hate more than someone who does not (ie. me) talking about weight in such a way that casts blame on the person who is overweight. I know this is also largely the reason for the Fat Acceptance Movement. It is not my intention to insult or patronize anyone, especially not those who are already sensitive about themselves. Apologies if this blog creeps into that territory.
I've been thinking about doing a blog on the fat acceptance movement for a while now, as I find the whole thing quite interesting--the idea that people are persecuted and discriminated against for their weight. I've been quite interested in discrimination in the past few years (speciesism is a favourite as of late, but sexism and racism are also high on my list). But what really clenched it was this article that Tracy pointed out to me about Lululemon. Basically, there's some reason to believe the company may be getting rid of sizes 12 and 14 (and incorporating a size 0). It was one instance where I really thought, "maybe the fat power folk are onto something."
While the actual details in the Lululemon case are in the allegation phase right now, one can definitely understand their motivation for doing so:
a) They want their product to appeal to other potential buyers (...and maybe size 14 folks aren't good advertising for lulu)
b) They promote a healthy lifestyle (...and most of would us probably assume size 14 folks aren't part of that lifestyle)
But one could also argue that not providing these sizes is a form of discrimination or prejudice. It would be tough to find another group that could be actively excluded without it raising some serious flags. It also makes a company that already seems a little elitist (with their high price tags and fancy storefronts) seem even more so (since people who are poor are far more likely to be overweight).
And you can't claim they are just avoiding unusual sizes because the size 0 is far more rare than size 14, let alone size 12. In fact, overweight people actually make up the majority in Canada and the U.S. (and, I'm sure, other countries).
But then, there always stands the argument that by accommodating for people who are overweight or obese, you're simply allowing them to go with their unhealthy lifestyle without trying to make real, healthful change (of course, that assumes that overweight/obese people are always unfit, something I'll get into in Part 2).
This leads me to the real issue I want to examine about obesity, its perception in society and whether the Fat Acceptance Movement is a worthwhile idea, or something we should be at least somewhat skeptical of.
To be continued...
3 comments:
I have found that at Lululemon they size their products to fit quite small, so an average sized person has to go up a size. My mother-in-law, a yoga and pilates teacher and normally a size 6, has to buy a 10 to have a jacket or pair of yoga pants fit her correctly. It is for this reason she doesn't shop at that store. Doing away with the larger sizes just alienates a group of people who may be only a size 8 or 10-- still below the average Canadian female's size-- and who may be perfectly healthy, active people.
This weight elitism can discourage people from pursuing a healthy lifestyle at all. I mean, what's the point when a 140 lb person can't even find yoga pants that fit?
That's funny: the guys stuff seems to have the opposite problem. I almost decided not to buy a small jacket there because it was a little on the big side. Actually, come to think of it, I believe it's only been a few garments I've had that issue with.
I agree that this type of policy could potentially dissuade people looking to get fit. But I also find a large portion of those who shop at Lulu are not looking for activewear; they're looking for a hoodie or sweatpants they can wear to the mall.
Overweight people who wear yoga pants everywhere are committing a crime against humanity.
Post a Comment