I was excited to find out that Kelly Osbourne is launching a clothing line in sizes 0-24–some of the pieces (like the metallic rose sweatshirt pictured above) are really cute.
But I was less excited to see the language she used to talk about her line:
Stories… by Kelly Osbourne is for EVERY woman, because I believe fashion should be fair! That’s why every single piece will be in a size 0-24. Yes, you heard me! This is for you ALL!
I appreciate that her line includes some plus sizes, which is more than most celebrity lines include. 0-24 is certainly a big range of sizes, and probably includes the majority of women. But it in no way includes all women, and claiming that it does erases the existence of women who wear a size 26 or bigger.
Larger fat women already experience some of the worst size discrimination, and have the fewest options for clothing. It’s especially shitty to imply they don’t even exist by emphatically stating that a 0-24 size range includes “EVERY woman.”
This happens again and again in the plus size fashion world, and I’m sick of it. I want women who wear a size 26, or 28, or 34, to have just as many clothing options as I do. And if some companies aren’t going to include larger plus sizes, I want them to at least stop claiming that they make clothes for all women.
16 thoughts on “Dear Kelly Osbourne, women larger than a size 24 exist”
Reblogged this on Fatty Rants and Raves and commented:
I am thrilled that her line has such a wide variety of sizes. It would just be awesome if women my size also had such options. I guess that, according to Ms Osbourne, I’m not a woman… or at least a woman worth her time and effort.
When I heard last week about this collection, I thought ‘All women, my arse!’ and sadly have been proved correct. I’m so sick of this glass ceiling.
Seriously, it’s ridiculous.
I used to be a really big fan of Kelley when they had their reality show but over the years I have seen her make some awful comments about women’s bodies/appearance. Especially on her Twitter account. I honestly think she is making them in larger size just to reach more customers and not in a “everybody is beautiful” kinda away. I could be wrong but that’s the feeling I have.
Sadly, that doesn’t surprise me. I’m glad she’s making some plus sizes regardless of why she’s doing it, but she doesn’t seem to have her heart in the right place at all…
I hate the sort of “fraud” that happens when a clothing company makes a limited range of sizes (no matter how good) and broadcasts that as clothing for “every” body.
Like, the clothing companies that are publicly exclusive, that is not good — but at least people are able to see and call them out for what they are.
But when exclusion is practiced under the guise and catchphrase of inclusion — well, that gives everyone a skewed sense of what “inclusion” actually should look like.
Wow, you would think for a woman who use to be big she would realize she’s not covering all sizes. I get that there’s the issue of demand and whether or not she’ll have a large enough consumer base to require sizes larger than 24, but if you’re not going to produce them it’s better not to mention anything at all (or maybe apologize for the lack of larger sizes). Her statement just feels so awkward and fake, like Dove’s real campaign for beauty.
It really does. I wish she would just be honest about the fact that her line includes some plus sizes but not all, but celebrities are not usually known for their honesty…
That’s really frustrating. 😦 Your blog has really helped me see how often these kind of discriminatory comments are made, and how often they are accepted by mainstream media. I really appreciate you sharing all of these – articles, thoughts, etc. I do have a question I’ve been meaning to ask you, because I’m not very well-versed in plus sizes. And I hope I’m not giving any offense – I honestly just don’t know. What would you consider a full range of plus sizes? I thought about this the other day when a brand contacted me about a product feature and mentioned that they carry sizes 0-36W. They didn’t claim to carry a full range of sizes, but that got me curious.
On the other end of the spectrum, if she’s going to claim to carry all sizes, she should really include 00 as well.
I agree that if she’s going to claim all sizes, she should carry 00 as well.
In general, I think 0 or 00 through 36 is a pretty good range that includes most women. Unfortunately there’s no range that wouldn’t leave someone out, unless you do custom sizing, but the number of women who wear sizes 38+ is pretty small compared to the number who wear 26 – 36.
Was the brand that contacted you eShakti, by any chance? I know they do sizes 0 – 36, plus custom sizing, which is pretty awesome. I haven’t had the greatest experiences with their customer service, and most of their clothing isn’t really my style, but I do really appreciate that they have a broader sizes range than most companies, and the custom sizing option.
Very true – thanks for the response! And yes, it was eShakti. I’ve never worked with them before, so we’ll see how this experience turns out! Of course, companies may pay more attention if they know you’re a blogger who is going to write about them… but I guess that can’t be helped. I was pretty impressed by how many types of custom sizing options they have – I’ve never seen any other company that offers custom shoulder widths.
I hope your experience turns out well! I do like that they have so many different options for custom sizing, which is really useful for people who aren’t proportioned the way most clothing is made.
Would you be okay with me quoting this on my blog? (My blog is sraedoes.blogspot.com if you want to check it out and make sure you’d be okay with being mentioned on it.) I’m writing a post about clothing lines that claim to be “for all women,” and you sum up the willful ignorance and disrespect of this kind of language when the line actually stops at 24.
Pingback: What Does “Fashion for All Sizes” Mean to You? | sraedoes