We don’t reblog a lot around here but sometimes something just strikes me as so right and so important I want to share it. As I’ve been thinking about injury, disability, living with pain, and trying to come to terms with my left knee, I’ve been thinking about the social model of disability. Here’s Andrea Zanin on what the social model of disability leaves out.
I’m hoping to get Andrea to guest blog here about her return to yoga and biking and other things after years ago coping with pain and very serious health issues for many, many years.
But we can start with this. Thanks Andrea.
This is something I’ve wondered about and struggled with: Do we have an ethical obligation to buy sports clothes only from manufacturers who make a full range of sizes? I’m not small, I weigh a lot, but I fit within the usual size range so I can buy work out wear wherever I want (except Lululemon–their size range leaves me out!) but I often feel torn about it. When I blogged about finding a sports bra that fit–see http://fitisafeministissue.com/2015/05/16/oiselle-bras-reviewed/–a few readers commented that I ought to have spent my money elsewhere since the Oiselle large (which fits me) is only a 12, not even a 14-16. And I agree that in a world in which 14 is the average size it’s odd to make your large smaller than that.
So part of me is with the people like Leah who advocate spending on our money on stuff made by companies that support body diversity. The other part of me thinks it’s okay if companies specialize and that we can spend our money on products that fit us and not worry about those who are excluded.
I’m curious. What do you think? Is there an ethical obligation to buy from companies who sell a full range of sizes? If not an obligation (maybe that’s too strong) is it better, ethically speaking, to buy from companies who sell a full range of sizes? Let us know what you think.