American Apparel Advertises 'Plus' Sizes

By Katherine McPherson, UWire Article

American Apparel, the popular clothing store, launched a contest last month to find plus-size models for its new line of XL clothes.

This was supposed to be a significant moment for mainstream clothing stores embracing beauty in all sizes.

Except that it wasn't.

From the moment the contest was launched, derogatory language was used to describe the new line. The contest was called "The Next BIG Thing," with emphasis on the big. The company's website used terms like "full-size fannies" and "booty-ful," while the new line is categorized as "Beauty and Booty."

Heaven forbid you forget the contest sought a plus-size model.

Except that it didn't.

American Apparel is extending a handful of its styles to XL.

The sizing chart on the company's website indicates that this translates to a size 12-14 — the size of the average American woman, according to The Los Angeles Times.

I'll never understand how an average-sized woman could be considered plus size, and I'll never understand why the fashion industry ignores women of size when they make up such a significant part of the market.

Even if I did, understanding of American Apparel's handling of "The Next BIG Thing" would still elude me.

The general public voted on the contest, and the clear winner was Nancy Upton, a woman who — fed up with being condescended to — posed for glamour shots while eating chicken and pouring ranch dressing on her body.

A screenshot on the blog Jezebel shows that Upton was rated first out of 991 entrants, yet she was informed by creative director Iris Alonzo last week that she was not the winner because American Apparel decided "to award the prizes to other contestants that we feel truly exemplify the idea of beauty inside and out."

Perhaps we could blame Alonzo's response to her lack of appreciation for Upton's satirical photos.

Except that we can't.

This isn't the first time American Apparel has dismissed plus-sized models as being unimportant.

In May 2010, blogger April Flores was looking for shirts for a clothing line and went to an American Apparel showroom to meet with executives. On finding that the company had few sizes larger than L, Flores asked if they had considered expanding their sizes. "That's not our demographic," an employee said.

It's funny how "plus sizes" — and I use that term very loosely — became their demographic after media members like The Guardian began reporting the company was facing bankruptcy.

American Apparel is no stranger to controversy.

CEO Dov Charney has been sued for sexual harassment several times, and some reports suggest that he requires all employees to submit a full-length picture of themselves in order to be hired. Many of its advertisements feature women either topless, on a bed or sexually posed.

It alarms me that girls grow up seeing ads like these because, sadly, American Apparel is not the only company whose marketing objectifies or otherwise insults women.

Count advertisements in Cosmo or Vogue, and you'll find the number of them with women lying down or otherwise looking sexual is far greater than the number of ads where a woman has power.

I'm grateful for programs like the Women's Outreach Center's Love Your Body Day.

To commemorate the day last year, volunteers stood on the South Oval and handed out sticky notes with uplifting and body-positive messages on them. Volunteers will be out there again Oct. 19 and I'm looking forward to their program as a way to combat this beauty-obsessed, degrading trend.

The way women are commonly depicted in advertisements is as unacceptable as American Apparel's treatment of plus-size women.

I hope one day to see widespread acceptance of women of all sizes in media of all kinds. Until then, may the Nancy Uptons of the world continue to protest the inequality of advertisements.

Katherine McPherson from University of Oklahoma.