write.as/jonbeckett

A friend posted on Facebook this evening about Abercrombie and Fitch's marketing strategy – the fact that they don't sell clothes beyond a certain size in their stores, that they only hire attractive staff, and that their CEO openly admits to such tactics. Of course this entire subject causes reactions from anybody – particularly women – who are outside of that target demographic. Reactions that cause outpourings of spite, venom, and vitriol.

Here's the thing. We supposedly live in a free society – one where consumers have the freedom to choose where they buy their clothes from, and the retailers have the freedom to choose what they sell. Some stores specialise in clothes for children, some in clothes for old people, some in women's lingerie, and so on. None of these stores are called out for not including everybody, and yet none of the reasons people might visit these stores can be changed – you are the age you are, or the sex you are.

For some reason targeting a body shape – that is invariably directly influenced by personal decisions, and can be changed – causes havoc. Accusations are thrown about body image, expectation, and acceptance.

It's the sense of entitlement that annoys me.

When did you ever hear somebody short in stature complaining vociferously about the clothes they might buy, or somebody with big feet complaining about the shoes they cannot buy? Perhaps because they cannot change their lot – they accept the way the world is.

You can draw an odd, and perplexing parallel with Apple products. Traditionally they have been the most expensive products on the market, and by and large they still are. They are marketed as “aspirational”, and they get away with it. People spend money in their millionsto acquire phones, tablets, and computers that they cannot really afford with this same sense of entitlement. Of course, borrowing money is far easier for most people than controlling their diet.