Overweight people have always had a raw deal in society. Most of us are taught from a young age by our parents not to judge a book by its cover, but that somehow hasn't stopped sizeism from leaching into pretty much every faction of society.
If you're above the average size at school, chances are you'll have found yourself needlessly wounded by playground wisecracks at one time or another and if you carried this extra weight into adulthood, you're bound to have encountered some sort of prejudice, one way or the other. No one escapes, and recently yet another issue has sprung up in the fat-shaming arena. Namely, the so-called "fat tax" that certain retailers put on their clothes.
British global fashion retailer New Look found themselves in hot water in early November after they were accused of charging larger customers almost double for various items in their plus size range. The matter was brought to public attention by social media user, Sarah Doherty, who posted a tweet that showed two images of two jackets that at first glance looked identical. Although when her followers studied the photos a little closer they quickly realised that the pair were two different sizes with a dramatic price difference.
It came to light that the "mink suedette faux fur collar aviator jacket" was being sold on the New Look website for £29.99 in sizes 8-18, while a "curves mink faux shearling aviator jacket" was priced online at £54.99, (afterwards on sale for £41.24) in sizes 18-32. Sarah made her feelings clear about the situation when she tweeted: "*closes new look app forever*".
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/sazamophone/status/925840398832099328]]
The act of adding on a "fat tax" to plus size clothes is one that is certainly not new, with some of our favourite high street shops and online retailers - including Boohoo, ASOS, Mango, Walmart, Old Navy and Macy's - all being accused of it in the past. But the question on everyone's lips is, is charging more necessary, or is it just another unruly bout of fat shaming coming back around to haunt us?
Much like in any situation these days, the rest of Twitter jumped at the chance to have their say about the issue at hand, with many people posting stories about similar incidents in other high street stores. It quickly emerged that New Look weren't the only culprits when it came to charging overweight people more for clothes.
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/ChloeInCurve/status/925872555122151424]]
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/bethanyrutter/status/927530614328385537]]
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/FreetobeOK/status/913073705256980480]]
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/jmw3883/status/855956059059572736]]
One issue that cropped up among the debate? Fabric, of course. The main reason given by defenders of brands like New Look and Boohoo is the somewhat reasonable excuse that larger sizes require more material to make the clothes. According to sources, additional sizes cost retailers more in the manufacturing process and different materials must sometimes be sourced and bought especially in order to suit the production of plus size clothing. So, while some proclaimed that it was intolerant to even think about charging heavier people more, other insisted that if the retailer was having to use more material, you couldn't really blame them for charging a little extra.
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/pinkpinta13/status/926530217715404801]]
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/Writes4Life/status/926529815183806464]]
But, take a closer look and you'll realise that many retailers are making plus size people fork out double the price. A little extra, sure. But d
ouble the price? Twitter wasn't having any of that. Immediately users began claiming that those carrying extra weight were having their bank accounts victimised by greedy retailers.
However, did the solution to the problem lie behind Twitter user, Gil Newman's genius? She brought up an excellent point and made many "fat tax" advocates pause for a second to scratch their heads and think when she wrote: "If that’s the case then every size should be priced differently then. A 12 has more material than an 8. Why just apply to plus sizes."
[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/gillyf1/status/928169770624606209]]
She raises the important question of, how big is "too big"? In the UK, plus size clothing normally begins at size 16 - which correlates to a size 12 in the United States - so this is the point when the "fat tax" is added on. Yet, if retailers are going to slam a tax on plus size clothing because it uses more material, perhaps they should think about the fact that every size up uses a little more material than the last.
Regardless, many people won't rest until they are slapped with additional fines in every area of their lives. But, perhaps it's time to ponder whether retailers are claiming what's rightly theirs, or whether discrimination is playing a key role in the fat tax game.
