The story, as originally broken by Fashionista: A clothing company, in an anti-cyberbullying initiative (apparently it is a REVELATION that cyberbullying is wrong!), partnered with celebrities and “influencers” (again, please, no) to put cruel online comments received by said celebrities and “influencers” on sweatshirts. This would serve to educate us all that mean comments are mean.
However, an image of one of the sweatshirts was leaked!
Uh, OK
Apparently the quote was something said by a cyberbully to plus-size model Paloma Elsesser. This fact, however, is not clear from an image of a skinny girl wearing a shirt with an anti-fat-girl quote on it. Then LPA, the company that made the shirt, apologized REALLY, REALLY BADLY!
“The prematurely released images featured on Revolve.com was [sic] not only included without context of the overall campaign but regrettably featured one of the pieces on a model who’s [sic] size was not reflective of the piece’s commentary on body positivity,” the statement reads. “We at Revolve sincerely apologize to all those involved — particularly Lena, Emily, Cara, Suki and Paloma — our loyal customers, and the community as a whole for this error.”
Run through the SorryWatch translator (beep boop boop boop boop):
“Prematurely released” NOT OUR FAULT “on Revolve.com” BLAME THE RETAILER THAT LEAKED THE IMAGE, NOT US “without context” AGAIN, THAT IS REVOLVE, R-E-V-O-L-V-E, NOT US “sincerely apologize to all those involved — particularly [famous people]” OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE FAMOUS PEOPLE “our loyal customers, and the community” FIRST THE FAMOUS PEOPLE, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE US MONEY, AND LAST/LEAST, THE REST OF YOU “for this error” DID WE MENTION BLAME REVOLVE NOT US BLAME REVOLVE NOT US
SorryWatch understands spinning and capitalism, but it is imperative that corporations and people (not synonymous, Mitt) pause and THINK before they apologize. Because knee-jerk “omigod make this bad feeling/bad publicity STOP” apologies are rarely good apologies.
LPA later came out with a slightly better apology that still blames Revolve.
Still not great!
Here again, sucking up to the celebrity comes before apologizing to the public. But would the campaign miraculously become unproblematic if the sweatshirt had been shown on Lena Dunham instead of on a skinny model? (Please note: This is the first time “Lena Dunham” and “unproblematic” have ever been used in the same sentence.) Lena Dunham may not be a size o, but she’s not fat. Even the model who received the online insult, Paloma Elsesser, is fat by skinny-model standards but not by actual-American-woman standards. According to her agency, her measurements are 39-42-44, which means she’s between a size 10 and 12 in US sizes. The average American woman is a size 14.
But LPA does not manufacture plus sizes. Its largest size, XL (43-35.5-45.5), would likely fit someone who’s a 14 or 16. The retailer, Resolve — not to pile on or anything after LPA was all blame-y — does not even carry a size XL. Its largest size, L, is an 8-10. Presumably they’d be reaching WAAAAY outside their comfort zone, carrying this manatee-esque sweatshirt that comes in an XL! They would have had to call their web designer to add an XL button! Presumably they agreed to carry the hideous huge XL sweatshirt because it was for charity, so they could hold their tiny noses and suck up the visceral horror.
Upshot: The fashion industry is frequently oblivious to its own biases. If you don’t make a sweatshirt about fat that won’t fit a fat girl, don’t make the sweatshirt. THAT, not the fact that you showed the sweatshirt on a size S instead of a size M (probably Lena’s size) or size L (probably Paloma’s size) is what warrants an apology.
And sadly, both LPA and Resolve hung Elsesser, the model who’d received the insult, out to dry. She actually sounds like a smart, self-aware, socially conscious person who is insightful about sizeism. (It’s not her fault that plus models are not actually plus size; girl’s gotta work, she’s gorgeous, and my hope is that she didn’t know the shirt would only be available in straight sizes.) But it seems that no one apologized to her first thing, which should have been both companies’ first step. She had to find out about the kerfuffle from someone (who seems to be an “influencer”!) on Instagram:
Believe it or not, I’m not gonna make fun of the notion of a $168 sweatshirt. Capitalism. Charity. Whatevs. Though even if we’d known the cyberbullying-campaign It-Girls-raising-money-for-charity backstory, who the hell, fat or skinny, would wear this shirt? (Even if it WERE available in plus sizes?)
All this happened on Wednesday. Finally, today, Friday, Resolve apologized.
Soooomething is missing from this apology…
Do not apologize for “hurting and offending” us. Apologize for WHAT YOU DID. Not our feelings. Even worse, saying that the shirt was “not shot on an appropriate model” does not address the elephant [sic] in the room: YOU DON’T MAKE CLOTHING FOR ACTUAL FAT PEOPLE. There’s no way for the shirt to be taken as anything but snark at fat people if only thin people can wear it. The lack of self-awareness among most straight-size fashion people is really something.
It’s good that Revolve is making a donation to the organization that the shirt was supposed to help, Girls Write Now. (It’s a great org, btw.) Also good that they named the amount, unlike LPA. (Watch me play you jerks against each other! Can we shame LPA into naming an amount?)
Feel free to buy a sweatshirt (regular or plus-size, as you wish) and write BULLYING IS MEAN on it with a Sharpie. (You could also just wear it as is?) Then make your own donation to Girls Write Now. Le voila!
Yay!
Having these quotes only available for straight size women means that the only women who could wear them would be skinny. And would spend a lot of money so they could go out in public with this written on a sweatshirt. And then, since it would be devoid of context and 99.9% of people wouldn’t know that it was a charity thing would just assume that this clueless asshole had bought a horrible, mean sweatshirt to wear out in public and shame heavier women. And EVEN IF it was available in larger sizes, it would still be a woman going around in public with a sweatshirt that said mean things about fat people. How was this supposed to work? Were people supposed to know the context? Because no one would know. This is not a quote that can be re-purposed. This is not a thing heavier women can claim for strength. It’s just mean and cruel and NO ONE WILL GET IT! This is a stupid idea and they should all apologize for being idiots who don’t understand how reclaiming the narrative works and how charity works and how people work and how society works.
It seems like their initial intent was good, but before they started the planning of their campaign, they must have taken some drugs. Lots and lots of really bad drugs.
I remember an Indiegogo campaign where women were displayed holding large posters that quoted the awful words their rapists had said to them. That one worked because the context was made clear, and it involved photos on a website, NOT sweatshirts on random people! As a guy, if I tried to read the small print at the bottom of those sweatshirts (you know, the part that was supposed to offer context?), I’d be accused at the very least of inappropriate staring.
Jimmy Kimmel’s segment, “Celebrity Mean Tweets” is a much better way of illustrating how people are mean to celebrities, but I believe the overall intent of this campaign was to call out cyberbullying in general, not just cyberbullying of celebrities. It’s insecure adolescents that are most harmed by cyberbullying. Maybe these companies should come out with AFFORDABLE sweatshirts in ALL SIZES that have positive statements on them.