Mind the Gap
This entry was originally posted on 10 February 2003 at 12:15 p.m.
When will the waif aesthetic die?
While i was in Boston on Saturday, my girlfriend took me to the Gap so she could look for some clothes for work. Now, i'm well-proportioned but stocky (read: built like a small linebacker), and i don't think i've ever been able to fit into any of the Gap's clothes. This doesn't bother me much, since i don't particularly care for trendy clothing. Give me a pair of jeans and a loose tee-shirt, and i'm pretty happy.
So i was a bit surprised when we walked in there and found that their in-store sizes don't go above 16. And that's only for a limited number of their products; some only go up to 14. If you order online, you can get up to size 20--but only for a limited selection of their products. Upon learning this, my reaction was unfavorable to say the least.
I stood uncomfortably beside one of the tables as she gathered a few articles of clothing to try on. Obediently, i sat on a chair and waited for her in the fitting area. And i watched. I saw a few young women walk in who looked as though they'd have as much luck as i would with Gap clothing. And yet they persisted. I saw another young woman--who was quite thin--come out of one fitting room, wearing something much too tight for her. And it made me wonder what the attraction is to skin-tight clothing.
Considering that nearly 20% of people in the US are obese (not to mention the percentage of people who are merely overweight), i can't understand why places like the Gap continue to limit their in-store sizes to 16 and under for women. I also can't understand why the unattainable heroin chic still reigns.
Perhaps it's because we are a nation of rich, complacent people who, unhappy with our uncultured and easy lives, turn to Hostess and M&M Mars to drown our sorrows. Perhaps it's because we live in a nation where we are expected to become more productive on a daily basis, and where technology allows us to multitask at rates approaching the speed of thought--and because of this we no longer have the time to pack a healthy lunch or prepare a dinner that wasn't prepackaged and microwaveable.
Whatever the reason, and regardless of whether or not it's a healthy one, the ugly truth is that the United States is steadily growing heavier--and yet our clothing lines are not. As someone who is naturally big (i tend to keep a fairly healthy diet), i find this problematic. As someone who has seen the nation grow fatter, i find this psychologically damaging. Our reliance upon network television for entertainment is only feeding a desire to use unhealthy--or even dangerous--means to attain a body type that applies to about 5% of the population--a body type promulgated by chains like the Gap. Furthermore, this body type isn't problematic only because it's moving farther out of reach for most of us, but because it's not a healthy one in the first place.
I don't think that the US's increase in body size is a good thing. But i also don't think that making people feel worse about who they are because they don't fit into a popular image--an image that is ultimately unhealthy no matter where you are--is a good way of changing the situation. Better education about food, nutrition, and excercise in schools might be one way to combat it. Reducing the availability of soda, candies, and fast food in schools (and elsewhere) might be another way. But promoting an image (one in which the ideal is less than 10% body fat) that has had, thus far, no evolutionary value is a mistake.
This argument is muddled, i know. Let me clarify. There are two prongs here--the first is that the image promoted by chains like the Gap is one that is unattainable for most people in general, and one that does not confer any evolutionary advantage (outside of attraction, which is variable anyway). The second is that people in the US are growing steadily larger--to the point where that (already unhealthy) image is even less attainable. Both roads are psychologically damaging.
Here's what i would like to see: a fashion designer whose mottos are "Because We Know You're Human" and "Leave Something To the Imagination."
When will the waif aesthetic die?
While i was in Boston on Saturday, my girlfriend took me to the Gap so she could look for some clothes for work. Now, i'm well-proportioned but stocky (read: built like a small linebacker), and i don't think i've ever been able to fit into any of the Gap's clothes. This doesn't bother me much, since i don't particularly care for trendy clothing. Give me a pair of jeans and a loose tee-shirt, and i'm pretty happy.
So i was a bit surprised when we walked in there and found that their in-store sizes don't go above 16. And that's only for a limited number of their products; some only go up to 14. If you order online, you can get up to size 20--but only for a limited selection of their products. Upon learning this, my reaction was unfavorable to say the least.
I stood uncomfortably beside one of the tables as she gathered a few articles of clothing to try on. Obediently, i sat on a chair and waited for her in the fitting area. And i watched. I saw a few young women walk in who looked as though they'd have as much luck as i would with Gap clothing. And yet they persisted. I saw another young woman--who was quite thin--come out of one fitting room, wearing something much too tight for her. And it made me wonder what the attraction is to skin-tight clothing.
Considering that nearly 20% of people in the US are obese (not to mention the percentage of people who are merely overweight), i can't understand why places like the Gap continue to limit their in-store sizes to 16 and under for women. I also can't understand why the unattainable heroin chic still reigns.
Perhaps it's because we are a nation of rich, complacent people who, unhappy with our uncultured and easy lives, turn to Hostess and M&M Mars to drown our sorrows. Perhaps it's because we live in a nation where we are expected to become more productive on a daily basis, and where technology allows us to multitask at rates approaching the speed of thought--and because of this we no longer have the time to pack a healthy lunch or prepare a dinner that wasn't prepackaged and microwaveable.
Whatever the reason, and regardless of whether or not it's a healthy one, the ugly truth is that the United States is steadily growing heavier--and yet our clothing lines are not. As someone who is naturally big (i tend to keep a fairly healthy diet), i find this problematic. As someone who has seen the nation grow fatter, i find this psychologically damaging. Our reliance upon network television for entertainment is only feeding a desire to use unhealthy--or even dangerous--means to attain a body type that applies to about 5% of the population--a body type promulgated by chains like the Gap. Furthermore, this body type isn't problematic only because it's moving farther out of reach for most of us, but because it's not a healthy one in the first place.
I don't think that the US's increase in body size is a good thing. But i also don't think that making people feel worse about who they are because they don't fit into a popular image--an image that is ultimately unhealthy no matter where you are--is a good way of changing the situation. Better education about food, nutrition, and excercise in schools might be one way to combat it. Reducing the availability of soda, candies, and fast food in schools (and elsewhere) might be another way. But promoting an image (one in which the ideal is less than 10% body fat) that has had, thus far, no evolutionary value is a mistake.
This argument is muddled, i know. Let me clarify. There are two prongs here--the first is that the image promoted by chains like the Gap is one that is unattainable for most people in general, and one that does not confer any evolutionary advantage (outside of attraction, which is variable anyway). The second is that people in the US are growing steadily larger--to the point where that (already unhealthy) image is even less attainable. Both roads are psychologically damaging.
Here's what i would like to see: a fashion designer whose mottos are "Because We Know You're Human" and "Leave Something To the Imagination."
posted by Circus at 11:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home