Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird post. I have noticed a dramatic change in “size inclusivity” of the past five years. Now there are mannequins and models of all shapes and sizes. The local athleta regularly displays skin tight spandex on a size 22 mannequin.

OP here, and I have barely been shopping in the last 7 years. I known size inclusivity is a thing in the industry and I've noticed it in ads, but I gotta say when I was at the mall yesterday, I didn't see much of it. It definitely felt like a throwback to the 90s when clothes were only advertised on impossibly thin 15 year old models. I felt extremely old and huge (I am a size 4).

Welcome to middle age, I guess. Ads were much worse 10, 20 years ago. It only bothers you know because you are no longer young and in the age used to sell clothes. Nice dig at Chicos, by the way. Maybe a bit of self reflection might be in order?

No one has to self reflect on not liking chicos. If you like it, fine, but it's not fashionable and tends to look women look older and fatter. It's okay to say "no way, not for me."

It’s possible to not like things without dumping on the people who do. Not for the OP, but for normal people.

Chicos is a total cliche of "we man who has given up on looking fashionable or wearing anything without an elastic waist." Culturally, that's what shopping their means. I know there are women who find that empowering, like they look forward to wearing comfy clothes that don't adhere to fashion trends. OK. But it's also okay to decide, nope, I'm going to keep working to fit into clothes with non-elastic waists, and want to look fashionable even at middle age.

It's also just annoying when the response to someone saying that it feels like the fashion industry doesn't have anything for them is "just shop at Chicos." This really contributed to the perception that it's about giving up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird post. I have noticed a dramatic change in “size inclusivity” of the past five years. Now there are mannequins and models of all shapes and sizes. The local athleta regularly displays skin tight spandex on a size 22 mannequin.

OP here, and I have barely been shopping in the last 7 years. I known size inclusivity is a thing in the industry and I've noticed it in ads, but I gotta say when I was at the mall yesterday, I didn't see much of it. It definitely felt like a throwback to the 90s when clothes were only advertised on impossibly thin 15 year old models. I felt extremely old and huge (I am a size 4).

Welcome to middle age, I guess. Ads were much worse 10, 20 years ago. It only bothers you know because you are no longer young and in the age used to sell clothes. Nice dig at Chicos, by the way. Maybe a bit of self reflection might be in order?

No one has to self reflect on not liking chicos. If you like it, fine, but it's not fashionable and tends to look women look older and fatter. It's okay to say "no way, not for me."

It’s possible to not like things without dumping on the people who do. Not for the OP, but for normal people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Size 6 is pretty large in the fashion industry.

The fashion Industry represents who??

Given they want to sell to 330 million (haven’t checked recently) american women who are the average consumer, I’m not sure how they actually expect to be regarded of value. They do their fake plus sizes at Walmart and then continue to do the same crap they’ve always done. From different angles of sales, society, it’s baffling to me actually.

This is roughly the total population of the US. Were you under the impression that we are a country of almost 700 million?

Do men not buy clothes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird post. I have noticed a dramatic change in “size inclusivity” of the past five years. Now there are mannequins and models of all shapes and sizes. The local athleta regularly displays skin tight spandex on a size 22 mannequin.

OP here, and I have barely been shopping in the last 7 years. I known size inclusivity is a thing in the industry and I've noticed it in ads, but I gotta say when I was at the mall yesterday, I didn't see much of it. It definitely felt like a throwback to the 90s when clothes were only advertised on impossibly thin 15 year old models. I felt extremely old and huge (I am a size 4).

Welcome to middle age, I guess. Ads were much worse 10, 20 years ago. It only bothers you know because you are no longer young and in the age used to sell clothes. Nice dig at Chicos, by the way. Maybe a bit of self reflection might be in order?

No one has to self reflect on not liking chicos. If you like it, fine, but it's not fashionable and tends to look women look older and fatter. It's okay to say "no way, not for me."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird post. I have noticed a dramatic change in “size inclusivity” of the past five years. Now there are mannequins and models of all shapes and sizes. The local athleta regularly displays skin tight spandex on a size 22 mannequin.

OP here, and I have barely been shopping in the last 7 years. I known size inclusivity is a thing in the industry and I've noticed it in ads, but I gotta say when I was at the mall yesterday, I didn't see much of it. It definitely felt like a throwback to the 90s when clothes were only advertised on impossibly thin 15 year old models. I felt extremely old and huge (I am a size 4).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird post. I have noticed a dramatic change in “size inclusivity” of the past five years. Now there are mannequins and models of all shapes and sizes. The local athleta regularly displays skin tight spandex on a size 22 mannequin.

OP here, and I have barely been shopping in the last 7 years. I known size inclusivity is a thing in the industry and I've noticed it in ads, but I gotta say when I was at the mall yesterday, I didn't see much of it. It definitely felt like a throwback to the 90s when clothes were only advertised on impossibly thin 15 year old models. I felt extremely old and huge (I am a size 4).

Welcome to middle age, I guess. Ads were much worse 10, 20 years ago. It only bothers you know because you are no longer young and in the age used to sell clothes. Nice dig at Chicos, by the way. Maybe a bit of self reflection might be in order?

No one has to self reflect on not liking chicos. If you like it, fine, but it's not fashionable and tends to look women look older and fatter. It's okay to say "no way, not for me."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird post. I have noticed a dramatic change in “size inclusivity” of the past five years. Now there are mannequins and models of all shapes and sizes. The local athleta regularly displays skin tight spandex on a size 22 mannequin.

OP here, and I have barely been shopping in the last 7 years. I known size inclusivity is a thing in the industry and I've noticed it in ads, but I gotta say when I was at the mall yesterday, I didn't see much of it. It definitely felt like a throwback to the 90s when clothes were only advertised on impossibly thin 15 year old models. I felt extremely old and huge (I am a size 4).

Welcome to middle age, I guess. Ads were much worse 10, 20 years ago. It only bothers you know because you are no longer young and in the age used to sell clothes. Nice dig at Chicos, by the way. Maybe a bit of self reflection might be in order?

Anonymous wrote:OP here and I actually found clothes I like today! I have a normal body but wide leg and high rise look good on me as my best features are my waist/chest/arms, so wide leg pants (full length, dear god, I'm not trying to look like a hobbit in wide legged cropped pants) that cinch the waist and a fitted top is actually flattering. I found some wide leg linen trousers at the Gap that were surprisingly flattering and I can wear them with flats or sneakers, several ribbed tees at Madewell that look reasonably professional on their own and can also be layered under sweaters or jackets, and a linen button down at Uniqlo that looks cool/casual tucked into basic black pants. I also found some silk patterned pants at Zara that are not work-friendly but were really fun and I will wear out to dinner or on vacation this summer. So overall a very successful shopping trip.

But that does not mean I didn't gaze up at a 20 foot photo of some supermodel's pierced naval behind the checkout counter at the Gap, think of my own body in these sensible separates, and die a little inside.

Nothing could make me shop at Chicos though. I'm not willing to throw in the towel that much. I could stomach Talbots or Ann Taylor (I looked in AT and Banana Republic but didn't see anything I liked and it all felt overpriced for basic mall brands).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And some make fun of brands that work well for us older mere mortals: JJill, Chicos, Talbott, JCrew etc

There is good reason to make fun of anyone who shops at Chicos. Or Talbott's or JJill for that matter. Ugly-%$ clothes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Size 6 is pretty large in the fashion industry.

The fashion Industry represents who??

Given they want to sell to 330 million (haven’t checked recently) american women who are the average consumer, I’m not sure how they actually expect to be regarded of value. They do their fake plus sizes at Walmart and then continue to do the same crap they’ve always done. From different angles of sales, society, it’s baffling to me actually.

This is roughly the total population of the US. Were you under the impression that we are a country of almost 700 million?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Size 6 is pretty large in the fashion industry.

The fashion Industry represents who??

Given they want to sell to 330 million (haven’t checked recently) american women who are the average consumer, I’m not sure how they actually expect to be regarded of value. They do their fake plus sizes at Walmart and then continue to do the same crap they’ve always done. From different angles of sales, society, it’s baffling to me actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird post. I have noticed a dramatic change in “size inclusivity” of the past five years. Now there are mannequins and models of all shapes and sizes. The local athleta regularly displays skin tight spandex on a size 22 mannequin.

OP here, and I have barely been shopping in the last 7 years. I known size inclusivity is a thing in the industry and I've noticed it in ads, but I gotta say when I was at the mall yesterday, I didn't see much of it. It definitely felt like a throwback to the 90s when clothes were only advertised on impossibly thin 15 year old models. I felt extremely old and huge (I am a size 4).

Anonymous wrote:Size 6 is pretty large in the fashion industry.