Things No One Will Tell Fat Girls (26 page)

  
1.
  
The models they used for the “lookbook” were fat girls. Like, fat FAT girls . . . not padded, standard agency, size-8 models. Using Chastity, Gabi Gregg, and Nicolette Mason, they included body shapes and sizes that
we do not
see in plus fashion. This is an exceptional moment for so many plus bodies that never feel represented.

  
2.
  
They were forced to listen to the outrage. I'll be the first to tell you the Internet is as horrific as it is helpful, but in this case, it had the power to give voice to the thousands of women who needed to be heard. And that's a beautiful thing. Because of the ruckus created online, a giant corporation (one that has almost two thousand locations in the U.S.) was more or less arm-wrestled into providing
something
for a very underserved group of women.

Are the pieces dated? Yes. Is the selection limited? Yep. Is it enough? Not even close. But is it a start? Oh, hell yeah.

I'm so encouraged by the shift in consumer consciousness that we're seeing nowadays. We've got a long way to go, but we are speaking up and being heard more than ever before. And it can be
really
influential.

Another great example of the power of the people can be found in the “tragic” story of Abercrombie & Fitch. I love this particular story, not only because it's a drastic example of a giant group of people saying
“no” to the status quo, but also because it gave me the chance to get almost naked and have my pictures taken.

I like just about anything that gives me a chance to get almost naked and have my pictures taken.

If you missed the news coverage, in March 2013, some comments Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries had made in 2006 resurfaced and caused . . . well, let's just say worldwide outrage.

Jeffries's declaration about the Abercrombie & Fitch target market was shared online over and over: “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don't belong [in our clothes], and they can't belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely.”
³
This statement, combined with the irrefutable sizeism of the company's refusal to offer women's clothing in size extra-large, brought big attention to A&F, and became a repeated news headline.

Where before A&F could get away with its elitist marketing and advertising practices, Matthew Shaer writes in
New York
Magazine, consumers have gradually stopped buying it:

[Previously] consumers seemed to accept that Abercrombie's gleefully offensive vibe was part of the package, and the company's bottom line was never truly threatened. But sensibilities have since evolved; casual prejudice is not as readily tolerated. Today's teens are no longer interested in “the elite, cool-kid thing” to the extent that they once were, says [University of Michigan business school assistant professor Erik] Gordon. . . . “This generation is about inclusiveness and valuing diversity. It's about not looking down on people.” And with the help of social media, for the first time critics have succeeded in putting Abercrombie on the defensive.
⁴

For me, a person who faces weight discrimination on the daily, Jeffries's comments went in one ear and right out the other. That
was, until I was asked SO MANY TIMES by readers posting on my Facebook page to address the issue . . . that I finally did.

The concept that fat women aren't attractive or worthy of inclusion was what needed to be addressed, and it seemed only appropriate to challenge that assumption using the style of the brand's overtly sexual advertisements. I teamed up with photographer Liora K and “traditionally attractive” Tucson model John Shay, and one morning we met at a photography studio where I took off my shirt (an Abercrombie one I had picked up, which, as a size “Large,” weirdly fit) and got sexy with a guy that the world told me I couldn't.

After receiving the photos and superimposing in Times New Roman font the words “Attractive & Fat”—in a way strangely reminiscent of the A&F logo—onto the images, I wrote an open letter (that, thank god, was edited with the help of friends) to Jeffries and posted that shit to my blog and Facebook.

The letter read:

May 19, 2013

Mike Jeffries

c/o Abercrombie & Fitch

Abercrombie & Fitch Campus

6301 Fitch Path

New Albany, Ohio 43054

Hey Mike,

I know you've been flooded with mail regarding your comments on sizeism, but I wanted to take a second to write you about a project I've been working on.

As a preface: Your opinion isn't shocking; millions share the same sentiment. You've used your wealth and public platform to echo what many already say. However, it's important you know that regardless of the numbers on your tax forms, your
comments don't stop anyone from being who they are; the world is progressing in inclusive ways whether you deem it cool or not. The only thing you've done through your comments (about thin being beautiful and only offering XL and XXL in your stores for men) is reinforce the unoriginal concept that fat women are social failures, valueless, and undesirable. Your apology doesn't change this.

Well, actually, that's not all you have done. You have also created an incredible opportunity for social change. Never in our culture do we see sexy photo shoots that pair short, fat, unconventional models with not short, not fat, professional models. To put it in your words: “unpopular kids” with “cool kids.” It's socially acceptable for same to be paired with same, but never are contrasting bodies positively mixed in the world of advertisement. The juxtaposition of uncommonly paired bodies is visually jarring, and, even though I wish it didn't, it causes viewers to feel uncomfortable. This is largely attributed to companies like yours that perpetuate the thought that fat women are not beautiful. This is inaccurate, but if someone were to look through your infamous catalog, they wouldn't believe me.

I've enclosed some images for your consideration. Please let me know what you think.

A note: I didn't take these pictures to show that the male model found me attractive, or that the photographer found me photogenic, or to prove that you're an ostentatious dick. Rather, I was inspired by the opportunity to show that I am secure in my skin and to flaunt this by using the controversial platform that you created. I challenge the separation of attractive and fat, and I assert that they are compatible regardless of what you believe. Not only do I know that I'm sexy, but I also have the confidence to pose nude in ways you don't dare. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong by
posing shirtless with a hot fat chick; it would thrill me to see such a shoot.

I'm sure you didn't intend for this to be the outcome, but in many ways you're kind of brilliant. Not only are you a marketing genius (brand exclusivity really is a profitable move) but you also accidentally created an opportunity to challenge our current social construct. My hope is that the combination of these contrasting bodies will someday be as ubiquitous as the socially accepted ideal.

—Ever so sincerely,

Jes
                

P.S. If you would like to offer me a “substantial amount” to stop wearing your brand so my association won't “cause significant damage to your image,” don't hesitate to email me. I respect you as a businessman, and my agent and I would be happy to contribute in furthering your established success. P.P.S. You should know your Large t-shirt comfortably fits a size 22. You might want to work on that.

Twelve hours later I was on a red-eye flight to New York City for an interview on
The Today Show
, and I then proceeded to spend the next twenty hours (no exaggeration there) in a hotel room doing interviews over the phone, Skype, and email for nearly every major news platform in the world. The world was outraged by the company's blatant exclusion, and people wanted to talk about it.

I loosely followed what happened to Abercrombie & Fitch afterwards. My campaign, along with a few others, was covered widely for a month, but didn't completely drop off as expected afterward—there were multiple follow-up articles written about A&F and how they were faring.

Here's the amazing part: A year later, they weren't faring well at all. Its downward-trending brand and closing stores, which had already
started in 2013, only picked up speed as the negative press continued. Shareholders became hostile, and the masses? They were
angry
because of the exclusion. It was refreshing.

And now? Abercrombie & Fitch's stock is lower than it's been in
years
. I'm absolutely certain that many factors contributed to this, but it's possible that a large one was the everlasting outrage that remained in the headlines. For so long, in fact, that the company eventually made a paltry attempt to pacify and started carrying extra-large shirts for women. But by then shoppers were unconvinced: “They'll insult us and then
take our money
?”

Yeah, it didn't work.

This example of a dwindling corporation taken out by the public's general indignation is just too good to not share. It wasn't because of any one person; it was the power of the people that was the ultimate punch to the gut. Just as Shaer indicated in his article, we're becoming more inclusive and integrating diversity more than ever before. We have light-years to go, but I'm encouraged after seeing the failure of a company that beats its chest over its own harmful marketing tactics. Good job, consumers. You're making me proud.

Another interesting development within the fashion industry happened just as this book was going to print. Lane Bryant (the plus-size retailer) launched a “body positive” campaign called #ImNoAngel with six plus models who were “redefining sexy.” The only issue? They were all that ubiquitous hourglass shape we discussed before. I decided that, once again, a counter campaign would be the ideal way to show both the company and consumer what an alternative ad
could
look like. I re-created the images with varying sizes of plus women who didn't necessarily fit the common model shape or “look.” These photos were accompanied by a letter in which this was included:

I'm going to ask you to consider including some of the following next time: Cellulite; 90% of women have it. Bellies; many plus women don't have flat torsos. All abilities; we're
all inherently sexy. Transgender women; they're “all woman” too. Small boobs and wide waists; we're not all “proportional.” Stretch marks and wrinkles; they're trophies of a life lived. And this is just the beginning! I've taken the liberty of creating some inclusionary images with Jade Beall, reminiscent of yours. These photos highlight all of these things mentioned above . . . and y'know what? I find them sexy as hell. I believe that constructive criticism is an important part of making progress, but I also believe that when you attach a solution you've got a game changer! Hopefully these can be a game changer for you. Now, I realize that you are a company with financial motives (and that change is often met with resistance), but if you're truly interested in empowering all women and joining the body positive conversation, I strongly suggest you consider widening your definition of “sexy.”

I have a feeling that because the letter was written to engage a company that had the ability to and voiced interest in changing the conversation (instead of shutting the dialogue down), a response landed in my inbox the next day. Lane Bryant's CEO Linda Heasley shared that she read the post many times and was appreciative of the opportunity to think, which for her, then instigates action. She also expressed gratitude for being pushed in a much-needed direction and agreed that Lane Bryant can do more towards building body confidence and encouraging inclusivity.

This made me fucking smile. Not because my images were perfect or included every marginalized body type (they weren't, and they didn't), or because now everything is all better (it's not), but because . . . perhaps what I hoped for could still be possible: that we don't have to alienate those companies that have the ability to reach individuals whom activists can't, but we can still approach these companies with honesty and ask for change. If we're real with ourselves about how change is best achieved in this fucked-up world, we'll acknowledge that
utopian ideals will
always
be the goal, but the steps toward this will be slow and far from perfect. This is common for all large contested movements, and there is
still
an overwhelming amount of societal pushback when it comes to visible body acceptance. Sometimes the most effective way of creating change is by breaking down old walls and dismantling social issues from the inside out, and I fully plan on doing this whenever the opportunity arises. Lane Bryant reaches many women who are still unfamiliar with the concept of body love, and I'm hoping that their small (or large?) changes will bring this idea to light for those who may find me too radical or abrasive. Will we see this change? Maybe. Maybe not. Retail has had a long-standing relationship with Exclusivity and I honestly just don't know. But even just having a conversation between consumers (the Internet and I) and a CEO (Linda) is progress.

So I'm hopeful.

And, guys, we NEED that hope, because even though we've made progress, we've still got a long way to go.

Case in point: I am notorious for complaining every summer as I search for sexy swimsuits for bigger gals, and I almost always end up banging my head against the wall at the inequality. There simply aren't as many options as there are for straight sizes, and much of the clothing that
is
available (especially in brick and mortar stores) is limited in style. And the swimsuits usually come with skirts. So what the fuck am I supposed to do if I don't like skirts?