![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
dudes. DUDES. what, if i may ask, the fucking fuck?
So I just got an e-mail from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sanj, talking about shopping, as we sometimes do. Not trying to buy this dress at full price, she says to me, but I'm watching like a hawk for when it goes on sale.
Here is the dress. Nice dress. Will look great onsanj. But does anyone besides me see the SERIOUS GLARING PROBLEM with this thing?
Note please that this is a merchant that declares "Sophisticated Style, Size 12+", and that in the URL for this item we find that we're in the directory "plus-size-clothing". We will skip over the rant about how if you're going to create a boundary between "plus" sizes and "regular" (or, as I like to call them, "minus") sizes, size 12 shouldn't be it, and look in the size bar for this particular dress.
The smallest size available is "0X (10-12)". ZERO-X, y'all. NOT-XL. Why would you offer this in a "plus-size" line? If you've set aside a place where the "plus-size" have to shop by themselves, isn't it, forgive me, at least rude and possibly even cruel to clutter up their options with "not-XL" sizes? And THEN there's the fact that they wouldn't have such a thing if some size 10 somewhere hadn't felt driven out of the minus-size department.
I can't decide on whose behalf I'm angrier -- the perfectly normal and happy fat chicks or the medium-sized girl who thinks (a) she's fat and (b) that's bad.
sanj, talking about shopping, as we sometimes do. Not trying to buy this dress at full price, she says to me, but I'm watching like a hawk for when it goes on sale.Here is the dress. Nice dress. Will look great on
sanj. But does anyone besides me see the SERIOUS GLARING PROBLEM with this thing?Note please that this is a merchant that declares "Sophisticated Style, Size 12+", and that in the URL for this item we find that we're in the directory "plus-size-clothing". We will skip over the rant about how if you're going to create a boundary between "plus" sizes and "regular" (or, as I like to call them, "minus") sizes, size 12 shouldn't be it, and look in the size bar for this particular dress.
The smallest size available is "0X (10-12)". ZERO-X, y'all. NOT-XL. Why would you offer this in a "plus-size" line? If you've set aside a place where the "plus-size" have to shop by themselves, isn't it, forgive me, at least rude and possibly even cruel to clutter up their options with "not-XL" sizes? And THEN there's the fact that they wouldn't have such a thing if some size 10 somewhere hadn't felt driven out of the minus-size department.
I can't decide on whose behalf I'm angrier -- the perfectly normal and happy fat chicks or the medium-sized girl who thinks (a) she's fat and (b) that's bad.
no subject