Close

I remember my first and only venture into a Brandy Melville store like it was yesterday. I was in ninth grade and ventured into the shop with my mother in tow. As soon as I walked into the store, I saw a strip of lacy material on display on one of the walls. “What an unusual belt,” I thought. Upon closer inspection, I realized that the fabric in question was actually a bandeau top. As I continued around the crowded store, I noticed that a majority of the clothes displayed would not fit me unless I dropped at least 15 pounds.

Brandy Melville prides itself on its “one-size-fits-all” approach to fashion. However, the one size that they market seems rather small for a company whose aim is to appeal to the masses.

Brandy Melville is not the only store whose merchandise is catered to smaller sizes. I cannot count how many times I have walked into Forever 21 or Urban Outfitters, looked at a piece of clothing and thought, “Who is that meant to fit?”

Despite the fact that the average U.S. woman wears between a size 16 and 18, many clothing stores consider sizes above 16 to be plus sizes. Plus-size clothing has historically been overlooked by designers and retailers. Many designers outright refuse to make clothes for people they deem “unworthy.”

Mike Jeffries, former CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch, was blatant in his disdain. It was under his leadership that Abercrombie & Fitch’s women’s department did not carry a size larger than a 10.

“A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong,” he said. “Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.”

Personally speaking, there is something gravely wrong with you if you get “excited” by making clothes that are made to intentionally make people feel excluded and ostracized.

When I was in middle school, Abercrombie & Fitch was one of the most popular brands to wear. I admit that I fell into the store’s trap. Looking back at this time in my life, I remember feeling physically and metaphorically uncomfortable in my clothes. I was hyperaware of the models that plastered the walls of the dark and pungent store. They were thin, mostly white, blonde and looked like they were having the time of their lives wearing the clothes they were marketing.

I felt like it was my fault that I was close to the largest size the store sold. This led to a lot of internalized toxic feelings about my weight and whether I was worth less because I wasn’t the “vision of idealized all-American youth” that Jeffries and his company were trying to sell me.

These feelings can continue into adulthood. For example, in the movie “Bride Wars,” a bridal store employee warns Kate Hudson’s character about Vera Wang’s designs by saying, “You do not alter a Vera to fit you, you alter yourself to fit Vera.” This phrase is repeated throughout the film and is never questioned.

Clothes are pieces of printed fabric and nothing more. They should not be able to wield power over us. Designers should be held accountable for their discriminatory attitudes that leave many people out of the fashion world.

The phrase, “Everyone deserves to have clothes that fit them in a way that makes them comfortable,” should not be a radical one.

Annick Tabb is a sophomore double-majoring in English and political science.