Throughout the years, the debate on whether women should pay more when shopping for clothes due to being plus-sized has been controversial and believed to be the “logical” thing to do in the fashion industry. While many have used the argument of “more fabric, more money” mentality, some of these preconceived notions are viewed incorrectly, which is why I created an article to state why I believe more fabric does not equal more money.
Plus-Sized Women already pay more for their clothing:
When comparing Women’s clothing on various websites such as Forever 21, The distinction in price varies when going from S-L, and XL-3X swimwear. This example shows the differences between straight sizes in comparison to plus-size clothing, especially in swimsuit wear that has very little material. This does not only apply to the United States, but other countries like the United Kingdom do this as well. Down below are some pictures gathered from a blog I read on babe.net by bodied of price ranges in pants in the UK. While the prices might only be a couple dollars off, it’s the principle of what this means that is disappointing.
The argument of “more fabric, more money” does not include the straight size.
Many who rebuttal the argument of, “more fabric, more money,” do not consider that this does not apply within sizes below 12. A size 8 is bigger than a size 6, a size 10 is bigger than a size 8, yet this does not change the value of the price of these jeans, even though there is more material wasted as the size increases. This argument would be reasonable if the fashion industry applied those same rules and regulations to all sizes, not just those who are plus-size. Think about it, when we shop for shoes, we do not pay for our size. All sizes are the same price, no matter how small or big your feet are.
The argument of making women pay more also does not apply to men, as many have remained purchasing the same sizes with the same amount of money. According to the New York Times, Old Navy was criticized in 2014 for charging higher prices in clothing for women but not for men, arguing that women’s clothing had contoured waistbands that cost more to produce. While it is understood that logically more fabric = more money, this continues to only be applied to a single body type, and quite frankly feels like a backtrack on body positivity.
It backtracks the progress women have made for body positivity:
As women, we have struggled throughout our lives with what the “ideal” body type should be. Ranging from having a slimmer, petite look in the early 2000’s to being slim-thick in the modern times, trending body types have changed. In the last couple of years, the achievement of inclusion for bigger women has become positive and welcoming, something that has been shunned for the majority of the 2000's. Making women pay for more fabric feels like a backtrack in this progress, further demonstrating the views between straight size and plus size in our society.
The New York Times
Debate on this topic: