The salon I visit is located in a mall and across from a Victoria's Secret shop. Each time I go in for a root touch-up or a cut and style, I pass by a double storefront window display brimming with ridiculously-thin mannequins in various stages of undress and sexy lingerie. There are more than 1,000 Victoria's Secret stores across the nation, located mostly in malls and strip malls often populated by families and children. The chain's annual runway shows -- and their revealing, fasting-to-be-thin models -- often make the headlines of newspapers and magazines across the globe.
So, why would a woman who wants to operate what is essentially a Victoria's Secret-like shop for plus-size women be accused of being "unclassy" and face stiff opposition in opening a new business?
That's the accusation and justification lodged by Redford Township, Mich. officials at Rochelle Allen, owner of Fancy Lingerie Plus, a plus-size intimate apparel shop specializing in the sale of undergarments, girdles and pantyhose. Allen hopes to open a brick-and-mortar shop to complement her burgeoning online business. Because of the nature of the products sold and clientele served, the shop would serve customers individually, by appointment only.
Allen wants to open a shop in Redford., a largely middle-class area of about 51,000 people, but her efforts there are being stymied by township officials who have been giving her a hard time for months about places where she could operate. Allen says she originally looked at a location across from City Hall last year, but officials vetoed that idea. Understandable, in a sense, but when Allen tried to open in a space that used to be an adult entertainment store, the city said that she would not be able to sell any adult toys, books, magazines, games or videos and mandated that any mannequins in the windows would need to be "properly covered."
Now Allen wonders if there's any space in Redford where she can do business, unobstructed and harassment-free. As reported in Click On Detroit:
"I mean, if I open up my store in Redford, are they going to try and ticket my customers? Tow their cars away? Are they going to put speeding traps up?" Allen said. "I have to look at things like that but I also look at it as anything worth having is worth fighting for. I'm going to continue to fight."
The Detroit News reported on Monday that Allen's battle began in August, when she appeared before the township's Site Committee seeking approval for the location across from City Hall. One day after the "heated meeting" -- in which an "angry mob" hurled insults at Allen -- the township building chief, Allan Hoard, was suspended and was later let go -- the Detroit News story on this is now available only by purchase, but you can still read a cached version here. Some people speculate that the firing came because Hoard said Allen's shop met township rules and that there was no reason to bar it from opening.
The story does not specifically name the fact that Allen's is a plus-size shop as the reason for the township officials' objections, but the fact that Allen alone is facing so many obstacles certainly raises questions as to why she's being singled out. Redford is a suburb of economically-depressed Detroit -- shouldn't officials be encouraging new business and entrepreneurship? The location Allen hopes to open in was a former adult entertainment venue -- why only now have township regulations on adult-oriented businesses become more stringent? A look at Allen's website, which carries all of her apparel plus some other intimate body products, shows that her business isn't so very different from, say, Victoria's Secret. Victoria's Secret has multiple locations in the vicinities around Redford -- why is Allen's shop being treated differently?
There are other forces at play, especially from those conservative numbers of Redford folk who are convinced that Allen's is, gasp, a sex shop (it's not). Allen, who is black, also believes racism is a factor. The Detroit Native Sun reports this exchange between Redford Township Supervisor Roger Miles Handy II and Allen during the August meeting:
"Take that to 8 Mile. We don't want your type of traffic here," Handy allegedly yelled."What do you mean my type of traffic? I assume it's the color of my skin," replied Allen.
And I thought Cincinnati was conservative. Even here Larry Flynt's Hustler store is located just one block from the city's convention center and only several blocks from City Hall. One local Redford business owner and Hoard supporter charged that Handy "runs this town like a dictator." Perhaps this is among the reasons why he was defeated in the August primary. Handy's term ended in November, but Allen's battle wages on.
Allen said then that she planned to file a discrimination lawsuit against Redford, claiming the attack was racially motivated. The editorial in the Detroit Native Sun opines that Handy was not referring to Allen's race, but that his comment was more associating Allen with "porn and strip clubs." Even giving Handy the benefit of the doubt, I fail to see how an intimate apparel shop that, at most, may show lingerie-clad mannequins qualifies as either. Valerie Lockhart, the Sun's executive editor, publisher and writer of the linked editorial had this advice for Allen:
"Instead of playing the race card, deal yourself a new hand. Present full figure women in a respectful manner - free of fishnet body suits and peek-a-boo bras. Then you'll not only be able to play in the game, but can win the game as well."
I wonder if the term "full figure" women is key here for Lockhart. Does she object to all lingerie or just that for plus-size women? Is showing "full figure" women in a "respectful" manner a euphemism for cover-up-your-fat? Does Lockhart raise the same objections to Victoria's Secret and their line of bras and lingerie as she does to Allen's line of Just My Size and Playtex bras and baby doll nighties? And since when has being treated with respect and equal, non-biased consideration become a "game"?
Regardless of the motivations of township officials, harassing a would-be business owner and threatening her clientele -- now that's unclassy. For shame, Redford, for shame.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Plus-size entrepreneur faces stiff opposition.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11409
I hope you are sending this to the Detroit Native Sun as well as posting it here. Is there anything we can do, as well? I don't know why this story really is getting nder my skin, probably the fiscal conservative deep down screaming "government can't interfere with private business!! Anti-American! Argh!"
Having a look at her website, wow! I wish one would open up like that here. I'm over six feet tall, and a size ten, I feel like women of my size and larger all should be able to shop for lingerie and have fun with it without being harassed or treated like they don't deserve to feel sexy.
Just disgusting. I feel lucky to live in Canada...
Yeah, it's not like Canada ever seized books or movies for being obscene... oh, wait. :/
And you know this is going to be played up as the "sassy heavy black woman" story. Nothing like a little stereotyping to go with that morning coffee.
On a lighter note, I must say the title cracked me up. Maturity was never my strong suit.
I actually didn't notice and had to re-read the heading. I'm surprised my dirty inner mind didn't pick up on it! Hilarious.
What a penetrating insight. ; )
It burns, it burns!
Well, obviously it's just fine for women to buy and wear sexy lingerie... as long as they meet Redford's beauty standards.
Also, is it just me, or is it hilarious that they want the mannequins to be "properly covered". For fuck's sake, they're mannequins. They're hardly anatomically correct. What, are they going to traumatize passing children with their tantalizingly beige plastic crotches?
However, it's inaccurate that you said that VS models are "fasting to be thin". I may have missed some common knowledge or something, but in the article you linked to, it simply says that they cut out carbs. Not terribly healthy, sure, but a crash diet isn't the same as a fast. (Although I certainly wouldn't be surprised if some them were fasting. It's just not what they said.)
Cutting out carbs completely is, in essence, fasting. I know, because I did the same thing when I was actively anorexic. Most foods contain some carbohydrates, even vegetables, so to eliminate carbs from one's diet is to drastically reduce one's consumption of food altogether.
I'm delurking for a brief moment to point out that, for those who don't live in Michigan and who didn't see the move, 8 Mile is the dividing line between the city of Detroit and the suburbs.
When anyone from suburban Michigan references 8 Mile like Handy, you can be sure its racist and classist. I'd venture that it's easily the most frequently used dogwhistle in Southeastern MI.
Unless Victorias Secret sells fishnet body stockings, crotchless panties and sexy nurse costumes I wouldn't necessarily consider the stores to be that similar. That said, I don't see any reason why a space that was suitable for housing an adult entertainment shop wouldn't also be suitable for a lingerie shop whose inventory includes some slightly risque items.
Ah wait, I misread. She IS allowed to open her shop at that location she just can't sell "adult toys, books, magazines, games or videos", and by the shop window mannequins being "properly covered" I would guess that means no peek-a-boo bras or crotchless panties on display. That sounds like they're okay with her opening a lingerie shop, but they're opposed to her running a sex shop.
I think it would be more appropriate for them to, as you mentioned, limit to the kinds of lingerie typically acceptable as displays. That, however, clearly is not their problem.
But Frederick's of Hollywood does, and they are in the same malls!
Victoria's secret most definitely sells crotchless panties and sexy Santa skirts around the holidays. At least where I live.
So Victoria's Secret sells vibes and vids and such now? Or was the comparison to V.S. just trumped up hyperbole to force a point?
Look I'm all for her right to retail any thing she wants to sell, including sex toys, but do we really need to pass off false comparisons aka "bullshit" to foster our opinions? I always thought that those were the tactics of people with bad ideas. If your ideas and beliefs have merit then you shouldn't have to cover them up with baloney and fabricated inequity.
She doesn't sell vibes or porn videos. I looked all through her website, and it is all clothing except for some sleep masks and a cardboard box filled with fake rose petals. The most risque things are some crotchless and bustless items, but as someone mentioned already, Frederick's of Hollywood, found in many malls, sells those, and I'm pretty sure I've seen some similarly risque items at Victoria's Secret. I would say it is a fair comparison.
And these risque items don't make up the majority of her inventory. The majority is normal lingerie items and even more comfortable sleepwear.
FTA: "the city said that she would not be able to sell any adult toys, books, magazines, games or videos and mandated that any mannequins in the windows would need to be "properly covered."
This bit seems to indicate that she can open a store so long as she isn't selling the above-mentioned items. If this is the case then either the article is moot or she is indeed wanting to sell those items.
Victoria's Secret indeed has crotchless and open-bust items. I considered purchasing one in the clearance bin last week. And VS has stockings, and garters, and other little sex things. They're just better hidden.
So wtf. Their "omg-it's-a-sex-shop" arguments are crap.
I worked at Victoria's Secret in college (yes, I was a Women's Studies major!) and was not bothered by the models - they were, in fact, selling women's underwear. I was bothered when, after they "sexed-up" their image, I had to work at the cash register in front of a giant, photoshopped boob, the nipple covered by a photo of some oh-so-sexy control top pantyhose. I left soon after.
Side note - there was a display table of legs, all clad in the different kinds of hosiery. I remember a little boy staring up at the fishnet-clad one in awe, reaching out to touch it in a Ralphie in "A Christmas Story" way. It was hysterical, a major award indeed for putting up with mall people all day. The look on his moter's face was priceless! But I digress...
What is the big deal even if she did want to open up an adult store? Obviously, the area was zoned for that! Fishnets and sexy costumes are not the biggest deal in the world to display - look at the malls. I am not in favor of marketing sex to children but I am certainly not a prude. Harming kids is hardly the issue here. Having comfortable bras IS, no matter what a woman's size.
I can't wait until this store opens. The silver lining is all of this publicity. Best of luck to Rochelle Allen; her store will do nothing but good things.
Wonder what the community outcry will be once she donates a gift certificate for a worthy cause or sponsors a tree in the town square or something?
While putting aside the racial aspect to this story for just a moment and focusing on the plus size aspect, I think there is an important example here about the expectations of women maintaining themselves as sex objects for others instead of having their own, autonomous sexuality. (whoops, run-on sentence) Women are taught all through life that we must conform ourselves to very narrow standards of beauty so that we can attain the ultimate goal of being desirable to all men. However, if you are unable to achieve this standard of beauty (because of size, age, race, ect.) than it is considered obscene for you to have any sort of sexuality. I think this is the crux of the issue in this story. Bigger women don't fit the ideal, and so the idea that they may want lingerie of other erotic material is considered outrageous. To these people and so many others, only "beautiful" people are allowed to be sexual in this society. It seems to me to be another way of saying that women aren't whole human beings who have their own sexuality, and that their sexuality can only be in relation to the desires of men; which happen to be in line with mainstream beauty standards.
Right. It's sort of like, "Why are you spending all this time enjoying your body and having sex, fattie, when you're supposed to be spending time LOSING WEIGHT and HATING YOURSELF."
My boobs used to be very large, approaching triple D (and you can have big boobs or a big booty regardless of the size of the rest of you, we come in all shapes and sizes) and getting a bra that fit was a downright bitch, to say nothing of clothes. It's frustrating to have to buy your underwear online all the time and it's frustrating to hear that their are such active impediments to providing well fitting underwear.
The Victoria's Secret parallel isn't perfect, but it does suggest that if you are catering to the white and thin that regardless of how risque your clothes are those images have been mainstreamed enough that they're deemed acceptable, whereas the same clothes on a different figure becomes inappropriate. It's OK, even encourage to bare your flesh when your thin, but I totally agree with the writer when she asks "Is showing "full figure" women in a "respectful" manner a euphemism for cover-up-your-fat?" I think the answer is pretty obvious.
I think the problem with them allowing her to open a shop was a factor of being overweight, black, and female. Even when I think about, I've seen overweight women who I think are more beautiful than some thinner girls, Queen Latifah being my favorite.
After reading some of this article about the things she isn't allowed to display in her window it reminded me of the sex shop near my university which proudly displays sex toys, lingerie and phallic cards in it's front windows. By the way, this shop is located right beside a Quiznos.
I looked at her website, and I like what I see as far as lingerie goes. It's nice to see clothing marketed at larger sizes.
Despite these people we are dealing with here are adults, and probably adults in their 30s and over, it reminds me they are still acting like the freshman girls in my dorm, calling overweight girls names and being rude to students of different race. I guess some don't ever grow out of that mindset.
I find it hard to believe that the city council would discriminate on the basis of plus-sized lingerie shops versus VS shops, but I could see them trying to 1) discriminate on the basis of race; and 2) eliminate stores selling sex aids, even in an area where they were previously sold (ie, that's what they did in Times Square).
It's going to be a tough fight, but she may have more ammunition for discrimination against her sieze, especially with that Detroit Native Sun article. All she has to do is point out what you did: Victoria's secret stores aren't facing the same problems. It'll be harder to demonstrate racial discrimination. Then again, no one actually came out and said "No lingerie stores for bigger women" any more than they said "no black store owners here." But there's clearly SOME kind of discrimination if the store owner is being treated differently than Victoria's Secret stores which carry the same merchandise. What kind of case law is out there for this type of thing, where someone is treated differently from another person or other people who are mainstream, but there could be two motives, either separate or together?
Maybe they don't like VS either but they know its a big corporation with lots of lawyers and they can't do anything about it? Maybe a small, personally owned shop is an easier target.
If that's the case, it's a THIRD form of discrimination - class-based! (As in: income based)
As you walk through Herald Square you pass the side of a Victoria's Secret. On that side there is a large video screen. On that screen you see a montage of the VS fashion show, ads, etc. Plenty of minimal coverage and items that could be considered risque.
I can only imagine the shit storm that would ensue if the Lane Bryant just down the block tried to do the same thing.