In recent assessments, it has been revealed that the average American woman now wears between a size 16 and 18. Yet, it raises an important question: why are mainstream clothing retailers not addressing the needs of this demographic?
As an average American woman myself, fluctuating between sizes 14 and 16 depending on the brand, the scarcity of clothing options for my size is frustrating. It’s increasingly disheartening to navigate stores stocked with limited sizes, only to find that the majority of items that fit my body type are perpetually sold out. Clearly, the demand for sizes 12, 14, and XL is significant—so why is the supply so woefully inadequate?
It’s baffling that clothing brands struggle to produce and maintain a sufficient inventory of these sizes. Each shopping trip is a reminder of the disconnect between manufacturers and consumers. The notion that designing clothing for average-sized women presents an insurmountable challenge is simply unfounded. There are fit models specifically for this purpose, and adjustments can be made with basic tailoring tools.
Moreover, the concept of labeling certain sizes as “plus” is outdated and discriminatory. Who determines these labels? If we must categorize sizes, shouldn’t there also be a designation for those who fall within the so-called “normal” range? It’s time to eliminate the need for labels that segregate women based on size. A size 16 is simply that—a size 16—and it shouldn’t be confined to a separate section marked “plus.”
Another suggestion is to feature models who represent these sizes in advertising campaigns. Retailers like Express, Banana Republic, and The Gap do offer clothing up to size 16 or XXL. However, the absence of models who actually wear these sizes in promotional material is conspicuous. It’s not just about the clothing; visibility matters.
Tim Gunn, a prominent figure in fashion, emphasized the need for retailers to acknowledge the reality of body shapes in America. With over 100 million women in the U.S. classified as plus-sized, the resistance from designers to produce clothes for this market appears to stem from a lack of imagination or an unwillingness to take risks.
The labeling of women’s clothing into sections dominated by signage declaring “WOMEN’S PLUS” is a stark reminder of the stigma attached to certain sizes. If smaller sizes, such as 0 and 2, aren’t categorized under a sign reading “Really Thin Women,” why should larger sizes be segregated?
Retailers like H&M and GAP may carry extended sizes, yet it’s rare to find models that represent these sizes on their sites. This lack of representation raises the question: does the average American woman not fit into your brand’s vision?
The solution is simple: create clothing that caters to all sizes and display them together. This inclusive approach would reflect the reality of women’s bodies today. As Tim Gunn rightly stated, designers must adapt to the shapes that now define women in this nation.
In conclusion, mainstream retailers should embrace the opportunity to cater to the average woman by offering size options that reflect her reality. By doing so, they would not only increase their market reach but also foster a more inclusive and supportive shopping environment. For those exploring options in home insemination, resources such as Cryobaby at Home Insemination Kit and At Home Insemination Kit 21PC can offer invaluable guidance. Additionally, for further insights on pregnancy and home insemination, this excellent resource can be quite helpful.
Leave a Reply