Fashion's Big Leap?

The small promo (to whet our appetite, no doubt) on the front page of our major daily newspaper promised "A BIG WIN for FASHION" (page 7).

I didn't bother reading pages 1 through 6, I jumped to page 7. Anything to do with "big" and "fashion" in the one sentence has to take my interest right NOW - not until I've read the front pages of the newspaper!

I find a half page article, under the title "Fashion's big leap". Now this HAS to be news. Doesn't it?

Sub-title then goes: Younger size 16s a target

I'm still "caught" like a fish on the line, until I read the following paragraphs. It's all about "fashion finally widening their ranges for young women who don't fit the size 6 to 14 mould".

I'm mesmerised so I have to go on reading. It seems Sportsgirl (Australia) has introduced a size 16 on most styles in its stores! Forever New (a newcomer to the young fashion scene) is offering sizes 6-16 on its fashion range. And Myer (the so-called "grand lady" of Melbourne fashion stores reports that three plus-size youth labels it introduced late last year are already regarded as high performers.

And Myer has done something else to accommodate the younger shopper by luring them to the Miss Myer Shop (for the young, trendy and fad follower rather than the mature shopper). Their decision is based on them "realising" that someone aged between 18 and 34 doesn't necessarily want to shop in the older women's plus-size area".

Excuse me! Look, I'd like to say a thing or two on this subject.

1. Where's the "big leap"? Going from size 14 to size 16 is NOT a leap, it's not even a jump, it's a tiny wiggle! Size 16 is NOT a new size for the young. It's a normal size for the young. Back in the 60s and 70s (even during the years of Twiggy and the mini skirt) size 16 and 18 were normal and typical for the young woman and were found in amongst all sizes, in the majority of shops selling clothing. Don't tell me otherwise, because I know!

2. And I'm getting tired of the manufacturers, and the retailers telling me that this is a step forward. It's not. It's merely an illusion. For there are many more young women of size 18 and 20 around who now feel isolated, because suddenly the news is that size 16 is being included in the ranges, as though it is the "top" size that should be treated as a young size.

3. Even older plus-size women don't want to have to go into a designed area that says, "Plus-Size" (with the inference "here's what we're offering you, plus-sizers - you either take it or leave it, but don't complain any more that there's nothing for you").

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why all sizes can't be accommodated on one floor, even if they have their own racks. If they want departments then let the brand-name "labels" have their own departments, but don't departmentalise women! I just "hate"being directed to an area (usually) at the back of the store or down the side out of the way, for plus-size garments, because they don't want me looking at all the luscious, glamorous, stylish, beautiful garments they have for the size 6 to 14 woman! Oh no, "be satisfied with dull, boring, unimaginative clothing, and be quiet about it".

This is all so hypocritical, and the newspapers and women's magazines, and the fashion industry, and the retailers should be ashamed of themselves. Yes, it's good to see that today young size 16 have some "fashion" choices, but they should have had them all the time.

And I've been caught in the trap - again - of believing that fashion, be it manufacturers, suppliers and retailers, really have our interests covered. They're "conning" us again, and because we're so desparate to find lovely clothing for our sizes, we fall for the old 'lie' again and again. It's not good enough, and it's not right.