Header

Wednesday, 12 April 2017

It's Not Alright, Nike

Not everyone is going to be 'happy' with this post so I'm going to just jump straight to the facts and deal with the people pleasing afterwards, alright? Here goes nothing...

Exhibit A: Nike's standard size chart
Exhibit B: Nike's plus size size chart
Exhibit C: ASOS Curve's size chart























Now, firstly, I find X sizing ambiguous. Secondly, I haven't the faintest idea how one size can have a 4" range (example: I have an approx 50" bust which usually makes me around a size 24, however a 46" or 54" would likely be a size 22 or 26, not 24). This is why I've included ASOS Curve's size chart for comparison.

That's not all. You may wonder why I've included the standard size chart - look at the measurements of the XXL and then look at the 1X; yep, they're exactly the same. That makes the 'plus size range' actually only two additional sizes, not three as it implies.

So we've got a 'plus size range' that *might* fit up to a size 26 but who can be sure, and claims to be an additional 3 sizes to their standard range and isn't. It doesn't stop there...

Not only do Nike want to falsely make their efforts more appealing, they want to charge you a fat tax for the privilege. Granted there's not a price difference in all items and the difference does vary, but this, quite frankly, is taking the piss. There is no world in which you can justify a £10 price increase on the exact same item.

Fellow fat activist, Mel, agrees: "As far as I'm concerned its not a 'scoop' or anything that Nike have now started doing plus sizes; plus size fashion is actually quite prolific these days to a size 24 and its clear they've just seen the market is growing and wanted to jump on it. I'm mad and always will be mad that fatties above that arbitrary size are *still* not getting the opportunities those of smaller are getting.

Its systemic fatphobia that brands have decided that a size 24 is the max they can 'socially responsibly' go to and I find the idea that we are to accept that, for fear of looking ungrateful, at best totally ridiculous and at worst a direct attack on fatties size 26 and above. They shouldn't have to accept the bones thrown to them while people smaller are reaping the benefits of increased visibility.

Fat liberation is uncomfortable and you have to say and do uncomfortable things sometimes, even if it alienates you. Spinning it as an attack on people doing their jobs is willful ignorance; I'm absolutely fine with blogging as a career but when they try to silence dissent to fit in with their brand loyalty they can fuck right off!"

Mel added: "On a side note, the conversation I've seen about it being 'workout' clothing for fatter people somehow making it a purer, better range is grossly fatphobic to me. Fat people are only allowed to exist when we're proving that our bodies are temporary.

There are fat people who engage in exercise and want workout gear to fit them, and then there are fat people who don't exercise at all but just like the athliesure aesthetic, and then there are fat people who like none of that stuff. All three groups deserve access to clothing that they find attractive/affordable etc." Word! 

I said I'd come back to the people pleasing, didn't I? Well, I might've told a little white lie; you know me, I'm not about people pleasing. There seems to be this unwritten rule that because a highly desirable brand collaborates with well-known bloggers and/or models on what they refer to as being a 'plus size range' we're all supposed to jump for joy; more importantly, if we don't we're being unsupportive.

Where and how people earn money (or exposure, I guess) is their own business and not openly congratulating individuals on their successful campaigns does not equate to sour grapes. In fact I was really chuffed to see Danie and Grace in this campaign and think they look damn fan-fucking-tastic, but I can't dismiss the flaws in this 'plus size range' which lie entirely with the brand and not their campaign representatives in any way.

Now, hopefully I've made that clear enough to keep people off of my back, although the fact that this *still* needs constant explanation is quite frankly exhausting.

3 comments:

  1. This is disappointing but not surprising. Mel absolutely nailed it though. I was nodding my head the whole time.

    Not a people pleaser?! Perish the thought ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Indeed, indeed.

    Ha! You know me ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I detest S/M/L/XL etc sizing, it's hideous. It's not standardised at all. Some companies seem to try and stick to the whole 14 is a large thing (that was my experience working in retail) but then you'll find some companies that make tiny clothes decide a Large is a 10 or 12. A large what, large teenager? Grr. Just use the numerical system, what is this incessant need they have to invent their own 'system' when there is one in place already.

    ReplyDelete