Adressing the Normalization of Fatphobia in Fashion

When I was younger, one of my favorite shows was Bratz, based on a group of young girls with a self-proclaimed passion for fashion. Because of such media, I developed my own passion for fashion, eager to wear all the fashionable clothing my heart desired. I always carried this excitement with me: I knew that when I got older, I could wear better, prettier, more fashion-forward clothing. However, as I got older and my body started to change, my clothing options became very limited. As I grew into a plus-size woman, I found myself less able to participate in fashion trends, feeling left out and isolated from other girls who could. 

This long-time struggle to make space for myself in a fashion world that wasn’t made for me inspired my research for this paper, through which I analyze how brands handle plus-size clothing and how their decisions are rooted in fatphobia. To demonstrate how fashion has not only left plus-sized women behind but also alienated them, I will begin by showing how companies that even cater to plus-sized women participate in the shaming of plus-sized women. In doing this, I plan to uncover the direct cause of many plus-sized women’s frustrations with fashion by analyzing the history of plus-size fashion to understand how and why fatphobia in harmful designs has been omnipresent. I will examine how companies' superficial and stereotypical interactions with plus-sized women and their clothing create a sense of otherness, a mental and physical divide between them and other women, a dynamic that highlights how company choices can leave plus-sized women with negative emotions. Lastly, I will discuss the problems with how brands approach plus-size manufacturing and how their way of thinking contributes to the current state of plus-size fashion. The unsatisfactory clothing options for plus-sized women in America directly reflect how brands view plus-sized women because of how they market to and interact with plus-size consumers with fatphobic biases, consciously and not.

As many sources have defined, “plus size” is a general term for when one’s size is larger than the average (Cambridge Dictionary). For women, being plus-size today means being a size 14 or 16 and up, making up around 50-70% of American women in 2023 (Rogers). That same year, around 12,000 stores carried sizes for plus-sized women (Women’s Plus Size Store). There are around 109,000 women's clothing stores, meaning that only 11-20% cater to plus-sized women, showing a proportionality issue that limits options for plus-sized women as of today (Dear). With plus-sized women making up more than the average of American women and many retail stores not catering to this larger percentage, why does the fashion industry exclude such consumers? This scenario isn’t new, but it has taken on increased significance in the twenty-first century, especially in the early 2000s fashion culture.

In the 2000s, being slim was more than just a fad; it was a standard many women felt they had to obtain or sustain. It existed in trends and lifestyles, commonly known as “heroin chic” and Y2K (year 2000s) fashion, where the people who represented these aesthetics were slim women (Endicott). This wasn’t only because slimness was uplifted, but because being considered plus-size was looked down upon and ridiculed, leaving women of that generation struggling to attain a toxic beauty standard (Konstantinovsky). From modeling to magazines, thin women were the ideal imagery that high-end and retail brands used to build their identity. Anything but thin was excluded, and many fashion brands profited from this idea. Out of this cultural context, many brands created an aesthetic for their clothing that excluded plus-sized women. 

In a 2009 interview, fashion designer Betsy Johnson reveals her belief that the aesthetics and presentation of her clothing “look better on the models” when the models were smaller, voicing a perspective many fashion brands at the time shared (“Growth Industry”). This sentiment can still be seen today, as Vogue’s Business AW24 Size Inclusivity Report noted that representation for US straight sizes 0-4 is at 94.9% while US plus-sizes 14+ is at 0.8% (Maguire and Shoaib). Based on this, there is an image that most brands try to obtain for their clothing that excludes all but the slimmest, an approach rooted in fatphobia.

Philosopher Kate Manne defines fatphobia as “a feature of a social system that unjustly ranks fatter bodies as inferior to thinner bodies,” a perspective that doesn’t solely exist because of biased attitudes but is a “structural phenomenon” that stops plus-size people from living their lives to the fullest (Manne 12). This is baked into fashion at all levels, beginning with clothing production. When it comes to the manufacturing of plus-size clothing, these garments have always been made to hide the bodies of plus-sized women. Since the early 20th century, plus-sized women were discouraged from participating in fashion because they were bigger than the standard size of the era (Stearns 82). However, when plus-size brand Lane Bryant opened, people started to see plus-sized women as an untapped market with potential. Starting with maternity clothing, Lane Bryant created clothes for plus-sized women with the idea of not making the women “be” slender but “appear” slender (Scaraboto & Fischer 1,238 & Keist 29). While this opened the gates for plus-sized women to be included, it also created a problematic manufacturing strategy that would continue to be the model of plus-size designs and manufacturing. For example, Lane Bryant in 2019 created the “tighter tummy” T3 jeans to slim the stomach. Instead of making clothes that embrace the woman, Lane Bryant continues to feed into fatphobic stereotyping that plus-sized women want to hide their bodies (Peters 18). More examples can be seen in high-end stores like Gucci and Prada, which sell clothes between XL and XXXL (16-20). Their clothes in those sizes are intentionally loose-fitting, boxy, and or baggy. This shows how brands believe that plus-sized women like to hide their bodies, which is a fatphobic stereotype that assumes that all plus-sized women are ashamed of their bodies (Money 9). Brands have the idea that plus-sized women don’t like their bodies, causing them to make clothes for them with that assumption.

This misunderstanding and other stereotyping of plus-sized women result in limited styles that fail to satisfy the preferences of plus-sized women. As Elizabeth Endicott noted in her reflection on trying to find plus-size clothing, most plus-size fashion consists of flowers, ruffles, and pastel patterns. While this may satisfy older women, it may not satisfy those of a younger age range (Endicott). Brands market plus-size clothing as if “plus-sized women” only refers to older and mature women, which is another fatphobic generalization. Liz Muñoz, CMO of Torrid, has observed that the fashion industry has an outdated idea of who plus-sized women are, causing dissatisfaction for younger plus-sized women (Schallon).

Similarly to how companies used stereotypes to neutralize the appearance of plus-size clothing, they use stereotypes to guide design decisions-- causing many plus-sized women to be left out of trends or everyday fashion styles. The styles for plus-sized women characterize all plus-sized women as soft, motherly, modest, and or attempting to cover anything that emphasizes their bodies. This causes women who oppose these standards for themselves to not have options. While some may have no problem with their clothing being marketed that way, it's fatphobic to not offer options that don’t fit that narrative, because it puts plus-sized women in a box and limits their self-expression. Plus-sized women are not a monolith, and brands fail to understand that when creating clothes for them.

Companies' marketing behavior towards plus-sized consumers is also rooted in fatphobia, such as superficial inclusivity. At the peak of the Body Positivity Movement, a social movement that advocated for the acceptance of all body types, brands started to include plus-size clothing, fully stocked and with various designs (Erdly). This also included brands beginning to hire more plus-size models for ads, creating a sense of inclusion. However, since then, this inclusion has had a drawback, such as brands stepping down from their stand on inclusivity and returning to prioritize thinner women (Craig). This regression has taken place not only in advertising and marketing, but also in physical stores, once again creating barriers for plus-sized women, further pushing the size and weight hierarchy society holds, suggesting the fatphobic idea of plus-size shoppers being unworthy of in-store attention.

Furthermore, based on the experiences of plus-sized women, brands will often put their existing plus-size options away from the standard sizes, fueling a sense of “otherness” in the consumer (Shelton, et al). As a result, many women have reported feeling ostracized because of the lengths they must go to in order to shop, whether for themselves or with friends, fueling a disconnect between them, the brand, and other consumers (Tovar). From my experience and the experience of plus-sized influencers, this can be seen in retail stores, where standard sizes are usually located on the bottom floor or main area, and plus-sizes are on the top floor or secluded back area (Thompson). In other cases, the plus-size options are available only online. Popular brands often market themselves as inclusive to all body weights and sizes; however, they create a shopping experience that excludes and alienates plus-sized women. The fatphobia implicit in this tactic is that while brands could create an environment where both standard and plus-sized consumers have equal access to clothing, brands rather favor standard sizes. Retail environments play a big role in how consumers feel about a brand, thus affecting purchase decisions and consumer-brand connections (Lam). Due to this, separating the standard sizes from plus-size options reinforces this sense of otherness in plus-sized women and makes them feel differently valued from smaller women. The underlying fatphobic assumption in this practice is that plus-sized women are a secondary concern, leading to the belief that their clothing needs not be placed in the same section as standard sizes because they aren’t as important.

This exclusion can also be seen in high fashion modeling, such as plus-sized models appearing less frequently in the fashion media and runway shows (Maguire and Shoaib). In this year's return of Victoria's Secret fashion shows, when plus-size models were included, they were vastly outnumbered by the number of smaller models. When brands market themselves to the general public through events like fashion shows, the image they present mostly consists of catering to smaller women, explaining the lack of diversity in our current models. Similarly to the approach brands took in the early 2000s, brands today believe that clothes look better on smaller bodies than on bigger ones. Brands like to pretend that they’re inclusive by marketing themselves as brands that offer fashion for everyone, creating a false sense of hope in plus-sized women. However, most brands merely do this to create positive credibility for themselves because caring about plus-size people at one point was trendy. However, most brands don’t fully commit to their promise of inclusion, treating the Body Positivity Movement as a capitalistic trend and using plus-sized women as tokens to create a positive image for themselves.

Despite the clear fatphobic nature of fashion, companies attempt to argue that their lack of inclusion and struggles with plus-size manufacturing have nothing to do with fatphobia. They instead invoke that the production-making process for plus-size clothing requires more materials (and, therefore, money), causing production to be lower than the standard sizes. For example, Lululemon founder Chip Wilson attempts to justify creating plus-size options because the resulting increased costs for more fabric would reduce profit margin compared to standard sizes, thus rendering these items less profitable (Wilson 157). While creating plus-size clothing could require additional expenses, to say that plus-size grading makes no “anatomical sense” insinuates that giving up on plus-size clothing is commonplace. Such a claim focuses solely on the financial rather than the ethical responsibility to cater to all bodies.

Designers and clothing manufacturers already know the difficulties of expanding into larger sizes and how to fix that problem. To expand into larger sizes, brands may have to spend more than they would when creating standard sizes. It may take a 15-20% increase in production for designers to make technical and fabric changes, including the increased cost of $2,500 to $5,000 to create new base patterns and hire models to wear the clothes (Biondi). Though catering to plus-sized women may result in financial challenges, treating plus-sized women as a financial burden rather than an investment is fatphobic. Investing in understanding how to properly grade up standard sizes in a way that avoids financial troubles can not only expand a business but also include plus-sized women.

Though fatphobia in fashion is an ongoing issue that may persist for some time, not taking steps to address it only makes it worse. Reinforcing fatphobia could result in additional prejudices, thus affecting more people than just plus-sized women. Confronting and acknowledging fatphobia in practice can bring society one step closer to making every consumer feel welcomed. However, the ridding of the current fashion industry's fatphobic nature will not occur without costs or overnight. More research on plus-size design and marketing must be conducted so that brands feel equipped and empowered to expand their offerings in ways that make sense for them. If fashion brands took the time and used empathy to listen to their plus-size consumers, seeing them as people more than a stereotype, a burden, a trend, or a secondary concern, fashion brands could take what they learn and expand their consumer base, increasing profit and loyal consumers. Fashion is an important aspect of many women’s lives, mine included, so while fashion today may not be up to par, if companies take the necessary steps to reach a truly inclusive future, no one will be left behind. Fashion would do what it has always been meant to do: make people feel comfortable and confident in themselves. 
 

Kayla Johnson - Public Remediation (Fashion Fatphobia Slideshow)