Dear Chatelaine Magazine,
Re: Urban Jungle Fashion Feature - September 2009
As a long-time subscriber to Chatelaine, I value and appreciate the way the magazine highlights different perspectives and points of view. However, as a size 18 curvy and petite (5'2") woman, I am often disappointed by your fashion features. I was curious when I saw that you were starting to include a "plus-size" option but instantly dismayed to see that your "plus-size" choices usually go up to a size 16 (size 15 in this issue) or XL (typically the same size range of the other body styles you feature).
Any modern woman knows that the definition of "plus-size" means sizes that at least go up to 24. I know these options exist. I own them and wear them. Here in Vancouver, many of the more popular local designers have learned the benefit of being inclusive in their sizing.
I believe that to inspire women to wear, be creative with and enjoy fashion, you need to give them realistic options. A size 20 woman may also be "pear" shaped. A "petite" woman (usually defines height, not size) may be a size 2 or 18.
We've all heard the fashion rules so many times we could probably list them off in our sleep. As a magazine that celebrates all women from all perspectives and walks of life, isn't it time to start encouraging us all to break those rules, take risks and realize that fashion can be fun and liberating? Aren't those the women that we all notice and admire anyway?
Thank you so much for your letter. I just wanted to personally apologize for the misunderstanding. The linen pant is actually available in a size 14–22 and the jacket was as well with a long sleeve. This was obviously an error on our part and by no means did we mean to offend or patronize our readers.
We'll do our best to avoid the issue in the future and again, I apologize.
-- Kate Daley
Assistant Style Editor
One Mount Pleasant Road, 8th Floor
Toronto, ON M4Y 2Y5T: