Massachusetts Height & Weight Anti-Discrimination Laws

As reported by the Associated Press last Friday by Ken Maguire, Boston Representitive Byron Rushing is sponsoring a bill to add height and weight to the anti-discrimination laws. This would provide legal protection for individuals in the workplace as well as while undergoing real estate transactions. According to Rushing (who is black, slim and of average height), he proposed this out of a desire to defend civil rights.

While I'm perfectly clear about that I see that this discrimination occurs, it's equally clear most people don't really believe that the issue is anything serious. Some choice comments from the BostonChannel.com forums prove enlightening on public opinion:

• I'm so sick of people using 'discrimination' as a tool to demand special services. The airlines have seats in the planes, there is NO discrimination, you're welcome to sit in it. IF you don't fit, who's fault is that? Discrimination is so abused. Everyone has the right to work, to be all that they can be and there is no finer country, but stop complaining, stop using excuses and stop looking outward, look inward and figure out ways to succeed, just the way our parents and grandparents all did. If you are too short to fly a jet plane, then get a different job don't expect a jet plane to be specially configured just for you....that's discrimination. You're getting something that no one else is.
• So I looked up the exact definition of Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. So would the 'group' that these people belong to be over-weight people? I believe the real reason discrimination acts were brought into effect were to protect sex, race and religious beliefs. Not to protect people who chow on fast food a little too much. If you're overweight and you think people treat you differently, go on a diet!
• Except for the most extreme situations you are never going to stop discrimination with a law. People looking for work or housing are discriminated against every day because they are the wrong color, religion, sex, handicapped, fat, tall and you name it....Its a way of life and human nature so better get used to it.

Mixed in with the comments of denial, trivialization, and outright viciousness (check out the more vitriolic ones at the posting) are a few posts defending the proposal. What is interesting is that a lot of people feel that it's perfectly acceptable to punish people using employment opportunities for traits that have absolutely nothing to do with their work performance (or credit-worthiness in the case of real estate). Or it's also fine to pass moral judgements about their character (Napoleonic complex anyone?). Some individuals even try to better define the understanding of what constitutes acceptable levels of discrimination for "overweight," as if a more nuanced bit of discrimination would then be okay.

There is no justification for this. Unless a job requires some physical characteristic in order to perform the duties of the job (i.e., jockeys, models, etc.), there really is no reasonable justification to penalize an individual based on how he looks. All candidates should be given equal opportunity for employment or living accommodations. The reason that certain categories are protected under law, such as race or gender, is that they've been shown to be systematically treated at a disadvantage. Time and time again, it's been shown that the short are economically penalized for their height, all else being equal.

For race, this problem has even been shown to produce disadvantages that are generational because the effects (and wealth, or lack thereof) add up over time and are passed along to offspring. Arguably, height and weight could be considered genetically passed along as well. Could height and weight characteristics be another example?

I applaud Representative Rushing for his proposal. Can't Massachusetts do at least as well as Ontario, Michigan, San Francisco, Victoria (Australia), and Santa Cruz to protect our rights?

While most of the heated commenting has been in regards to weight, how do people feel about the proposed legislation?

Prince Charming?

While reading this week's The New Yorker, Sasha Frere-Jones's profile of Prince, in Dorian Purple, amazed me. In her review of his new Las Vegas show, she brought up his height, only to toss it aside as a point of non-relevance. "Though he's just over five feet, lithe and pixieish, he never seems dwarfed by others onstage, and he is absolutely at ease guiding his ten-piece band. His backup dancers....were energetic and effectively underclad, but Prince was still the most seductive presence onstage."

What startled me is that she brought up his 5'2.5" height precisely because no one cared - it was brought up only to point out the lack of influence it had on anything in his professional life (or clearly, his romantic). His height had no bearing upon his musical skill, leadership, or sheer presence. And I couldn't help but think that, perhaps, Prince and his fans managed to do something that the rest of us with any short-person hang-ups are always reaching for - a complete attitude of height indifference.

Indeed, it's his continued status as a sex symbol at age 48 that is simply the most astonishing thing of all. Certainly, there are many talented short individuals respected for their work - actor Danny DeVito (5'0"), musician Paul Simon (5'3"), and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (4'10") come to mind. But it's not like most short famous men are noted for their sex appeal (even when they were younger). It's the most resistant area of change for the short man. The current cultural climate points out that short guys, particularly middle-aged ones, just can't be seriously seen as potential mates. Kudos to Prince, for managing to skirt the system!

Thank you Ms. Frere-Jones, for treating the height subject with such respect.

CNN Features Segment on Short Discrimination

CNN's Dan Lothian released a short video segment online today entitled, "Small World" that highlights a few of the problems that short individuals face every day. Thank you to my friend Farid, who sent me a link. It's a short four-minute video, so watch it!

It's an interesting feature that tries to give the topic a fair shake. He notes that being short can have real world repercussions - particularly for men in dating and "some say" in workforce pay parity. This latter was probably the only point that I found a little disingenuous - pay inequality (along with access to promotions, etc.) has long been documented in the workforce.

He speaks with a few prominent individuals that have been fighting against short discrimination:

Matthew Campisi, president of the National Organization of Short Statured Adults (NOSSA), speaks with Lothian about his experiences with height discrimination.

Ellen Frankel has written and talked about the problems of short stature in her book, "Beyond Measure."

Please take a look at their work!

Zero - the Next New Size

Today's Women's Wear Daily (WWD), the fashion trade publication, finally made note of this phenomenon in today's article, Those Zeros Keep Adding Up, by Rosemary Feitelberg. My friends know I've been talking about toying with the idea of starting a petite low-sized clothing line for months. I've even been contacted by an early reader about this idea! (Alas, the funding issue was the real problem with bringing my idea from concept to well...reality.) Everyone is now finally paying attention to the expanding and undertapped fuller-figured market...but that leaves us small people in a real lurch! But the article notes how certain designers are really cashing in on the slender framed.

"Robert Duffy, president and vice chairman of Marc Jacobs International, recently said Marc Jacobs sells more zeros than any other size in its collection and, truth be told, he has never seen a cutting order for a size 14." Lela Rose started offering zeroes because her clientele was swimming in her size twos. Nicole Miller is even planning to introduce a subzero size next season! (It was bad enough trying to explain what a size double-zero is...am I going to have to explain that I am wearing a negative two now???) What is funny is that this "sub-zero" is going to be based off of a 23.5" waist and 35" lower hip...which is what most retailers claimed their inflated zeroes to approximately be.

The article offers several explanations for the rise of the zero, including the fault of the media for focusing on the "never-too-thin mindset." The booming popularity of the zero is claimed to be a result of the overexposure of the infamous overly-skinny women of the runway. Ed Bucciarelli, CEO of Henri Bendel agrees and mentioned that "we live in a very celebrity-conscious world...[where] some are trying to emulate the girls they see on the covers." I certainly agree with Feitelberg on the unhealthy obsession of the American public on thinner and thinner models, movie stars, and socialites. (there is some counter push as well - like Madrid fashion's model ban) Regular readers know my feelings about this from my Fashion Week New York posts here and here.

What is interesting about this particular analysis is that it completely focuses on the high-end, expensive designers and the high-end fabulously wealthy patrons who can regularly afford such fare. It is crystal clear that the designers mentioned don't want anything to do with larger half of the female population. They are not catering to the masses - and the masses are generally heavier. It is not just an accident that Marc Jacobs doesn't sell to the average sized or higher woman. Marc Jacobs is notorious for micro-picking his sales staff for acceptable stylishness and attractiveness. No kidding that nothing was cut in a size 14...there's no such woman in the Marc Jacobs (or insert most any other high end label) universe!

Feitelberg offers several other possibilities that dovetail with the too-thin idea. Vanity sizing, the system in which a garment label indicates a numerial size smaller than what the same garment would have been in earlier seasons, is a major cause of consternation among the thin. "Some might be all too familiar with what a shopping challenge zero-ness poses.... Even that isn't small enough [for some people]." The thin are literally being sized out of existance by the clothing industry - or at least, for the mid-priced and lower ranges.

I am amused that Feitelberg mistakenly equates zeroness with petiteness, by completely misreferencing the Saks incident. She sees some designers expanding their sizes downward as a means to capture the underserved petites market. "The news caused such an uproar the retailer has since said the department will be reinstated. As things stand, zero is 'one of the sizes that sells out pretty quickly' at Saks, a company spokeswoman said. Theory, which also offers items in a double zero, and Alice + Olivia are among the popular labels with size-zero customers, she said." Both Feitelberg's (and possibly the high-end designers') reasoning is faulty, as the reason for the backlash (and subsequent mia culpa by Saks) had nothing to do with the lack of small options. Instead, the problem was that the petite customers were alternately deemed fat and tasteless, or expected to put up with designer labels that created smaller sized clothing (but not shorter statured). Petite does not mean thin!

The informative parts of the article actually touch upon the mass market segment of the industry. Feiltelberg highlights Jennifer Hoppe, a zero-sized, 110-pound woman living in NY (interestingly, her height is not mentioned - but I suspect she is taller than 5'4"). This interview actually highlights most of the problems that petite and/or thin people face. "She often finds herself shopping at Gap, Banana Republic and Old Navy - sometimes in the children's department - to try to find clothes." She spends hundreds annually to alter her garments because the standard sizes just are too big. She actually mentions her dream of opening a store for small people "even though [she] knows it's so politically incorrect."

Hoppe also touched upon a topic that I've mentioned in the past before too - size discrimination. She wrote an article about the "reverse descrimination she faces" in For Me, where she is the lifestyle editor (the magazine is closing, as of the Oct 2006 issue). "People often think it's perfectly OK to comment about how I'm really small and the fact of the matter is they would never say that to an overweight person." Mentioning the lack of clothing options also gathers backhanded non-sympathy from sales staff. "They'll say, 'Isn't that a great problem to have?'"

I've been arguing that there's profit to be made by means of a contrarian strategy. How can you possibly get a great return on investment if everyone's jumping in on the craze along with you? (Do we need reminders of the dot-com era as an extreme example?) Early designers (or investors) have an extremely high advantage. I have long been trying to convince people that creating a tightly focused thin petite line, particularly for professional wear, would almost guarantee loyal customers. Of course, this always bumps into the problem of production costs for smaller batches. But there's no denying that if a decently designed line was offered that fit this sub-market, it would be loyally followed. Even Kristi Yamaguchi mentions that "if I find something I kind of like, I feel pressured to get it. I know if I wait, it will be gone. Stores need to carry more small sizes." The article mentions that thin shoppers therefore must buy full-priced items, before all the goods are gone. Considering the potential savings if I calculate the value of my time, I probably should do the same instead of scoping out deals.

Under-served markets, like petites or problem sizes, are generally a captive audience. You can pretty much sell them anything and they'll buy it. (look at all the people that still bemoan the original Petite Sophisticate line...uber frumpy!) Mid-priced labels like Banana Republic and Ann Taylor are just wisely cashing in on the petite opportunity. Someone should definitely get a major jump on the under-served super-short and/or small - WWD has already started wising up to it!

Petite Sophisticate Is Back

A surprise for me, Retail Brand Alliance didn't just send Petite Sophisticate to the chop shop last January. According to the Chicago Sun-Times here, Charming Shoppes, owner of Lane Bryant stores, bought the brand instead and is going to be opening 43 Petite Sophisticate Outlet stores this Friday, September 29th. (They have a nice placeholder at their website for the new line, but no information is available there yet!)

The stores will carry career and casual clothing in sizes 0 to 14. Prior to the closing of the stores under RBA (which currently owns Brooks Brothers), half of the customers were shopping for career apparel. "We are looking at a broader strategy," Gayle Coolick, director of investor relations at Charming Shoppes, said Monday. "[Petite Sophisticate] is a fabulous brand name with lots of loyal customers. We'd like to look at expansion."

I hate to say it, but I hope the brand is ready to fight to regain its turf with more fashion foward offerings. The clothing sold by the old Petite Sophisticate was...fuddy duddy, but servicable. Let's face it - it's not like there's a lot of choice out there, and a girl's gotta find professional clothing that fits, even if it's not exactly stylish. Gap, Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, Ann Taylor Loft, and other stores have definitely stepped it up to fill in the petite gap, despite moves by department stores to the contrary.

Unfortunately, since I'm car free and far from any outlet malls, I won't be able to visit the new locations to check them out myself. Definitely give me an update if you manage to stop by on Friday!

Princeton Study Coorelates Height and Intelligence

Stature and Status: Height, Ability, and Labor Market Outcomes
Anne Case and Christina Paxson

Two Princeton economists recently produced a study that examines the correlation between height and intellectual capacity. It is commonly acknowledged that taller people hold jobs of higher status and usually make more than their shorter coworkers. Most previous studies conclude that discrimination, self esteem, and social dominance are the factors that contribute to the very real differences in outcome. The 52-page paper instead offers another hypothesis: "On average, taller people earn more because they are smarter....As adults, taller individuals are more likely to select into higher paying occupations that require more advanced verbal and numerical skills and greater intelligence, for which they earn handsome returns."

And as unsavory as this paper's conclusion may seem, it is not as brutally simplistic as it sounds. True, Case and Paxson do actually posit that height and intelligence are correlated. But more importantly, (and very easily ignored) it also stated that factors that affect adult height, such as malnutrition and in utero substance exposure, prevent, for lack of a better expression, full actualization of a person's potential. In short (no pun intended!), people associate taller people with less physical and psychological deprivation during childhood - deprivations that are empirically known to detrimentally affect a person's abilities. They also take pains to remove other variables from affecting their conclusions:

One possible explanation for these correlations is that taller children are provided with greater levels of cognitive stimulation at school. Teachers may pay more attention to taller children, or taller children may be more likely to be enrolled in school earlier than shorter children of the same age. However, evidence from other surveys indicates that the association between height and cognitive outcomes begins too early for this hypothesis to be plausible. For example, Rose (1994) finds that the length of 5- to 12-month-old infants is associated with measures of information processing speed.

The authors move on to explain that smarter adults tend to gravitate towards higher status fields that place more value on intelligence - which means prestigious professionals were advantaged developmentally, and are likely to be taller. They also briefly mention a study that tried to understand the perception of height in relation to status:

In another experiment, groups of college students were introduced to the same person...whose status was described differently to each group. On average, students perceived the confederate to be taller when he was introduced as a lecturer than as a fellow student, and even taller when introduced as a senior lecturer, and taller still when thought to be a professor (Wilson 1968). But this difference in perceived height reflects the reality that more successful academics are on average taller (Henley 1993), which may have led the students to statistically discriminate when judging the height of a ‘professor.’ Asked to identify “great” US Presidents and those who were “failures,” Americans single out significantly taller presidents as “great” relative to those mentioned as “failures” (Young and French 1996). Although the authors argue that this supports the self esteem hypothesis, it could also be that presidents who were identified as “great” were both tall and of superior intelligence, and that it is the latter to which their greatness is attributable.

Impressive and interesting as the study may be, I am disappointed that the two authors made no pains give us as readers many suggestions or cautionary notes in interpreting their study. Surely, if this was a study on the correlation of race and crime (with associated causal relations of socioeconomic factors), great efforts would be made to clearly state that determining potential criminality in an individual should not be affected by his race. Actually, even if it wasn't, we're well trained to immediately understand this (although, interestingly enough, not actually touched upon at all in this study). Sexism is also understood; the study does note that even controlling for height, women still make 17% less than their male counterparts. But heightism?

It's actually almost casually brushed aside. Case and Paxson mention that other studies hypothesize heightism (noted as "discrimination" in the paper) as a major factor in discrepancies in pay, but barely touch upon it themselves. They also mention that, when given the opportunity to do so, deprived children almost, but not completely, catch up with their taller peers in both physical and cognitive development. But what if the individual never has the opportunity to jump ahead cognitively? That is, after all, the reason that the college admissions process takes into account an individual's socioeconomic status and current potential opportunities when evaluating candidates.

Height bias is just not considered something worth quibbling with - and when you actually do, it's scoffed at and ignored. It's like a bad joke - surely you're kidding right? The reality is, short people do experience discrimination. The lack of public acknowledgement that it even exists only makes experiencing it worse. It's like the doctor telling you there's nothing wrong with you - it's all in your head. I would postulate that plenty of taller people would find the existence of sites like Short Persons Support to be completely ridiculous. After all, we're just overly sensitive right?

The release of a report like this without disclaimers is really a grave oversight - and dare I say, ethically questionable? The seriousness of the situation is clearly ignored. Kai Ryssdal even made it a joke about how he should be better paid because of his height - and this was the signoff to the popular NPR radio show Marketplace!

A couple of weeks ago, we told you about an interesting study we found. It said college-educated, left-handed men earn more than righties. I thought that was nice to hear, since I'm a lefty myself. Now, another piece of research in the same vein. Economists have long known that tall people make more than short people. The standard theory was that it had to do with social discrimination. But some economists at Princeton argue taller people . . . well, they're just smarter. So, they make more. Four inches in height gets them about 10 percent more in pay. Let's see. My boss is about 5-10 . . . I'm 6-1 . . . Yeah, I'm definitely asking for a raise.

I cringe at the interpretations of this study. Blogs have already picked up the sound bite. I will give Case and Paxson the benefit of the doubt - perhaps this study was not meant to surface to the light of day (and impatient media handlers). I doubt most of the bloggers have even read more than the Reuters piece (and not even all of it). I already see blogs like the Huffington Post ignoring the more detailed aspects of the study. As this blog states already, "Princeton economists say findings justify better pay for more height." Here's another off MySpace that has already spawned ridiculous comments along the lines of "I guess this means I'm stupid...." (yes, yes you are if you agree that this study makes you stupid)

I'll just be waiting for an enterprising short Princeton student to hang a mockery of a banner off the economics building screaming "Short people are dumber! Princeton professors inside say so!"

Saks Wakes Up and Expands its Petite Department

There is a somewhat happy ending to report from yesterday's NY Times, in reaction to the news last month regarding Petite section disappearance at Saks, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales. Michael Barbaro's follow up piece, Saks Restores Petite Sizes After Outcry, details that Saks will reinstate and even expand its petite department after receiving so many complaints from its former (and soon to be again) clients. Too bad that the other two giant department stores haven't decided to do the same.

It's not often that a high profile and high end department store admits fault and corrects itself. And even though I've never really stepped into Saks on a regular basis, I gotta give the managers at Saks my admiration for listening to its customers and doing right by them. I only feel sort of bad for not personally writing the company myself. Maybe it's time for me to start taking a look around Saks more regularly. With the added publicity from the whole debacle, perhaps Saks can start pulling its petite sales out of the red.

What's a little scary is how much the triple whammy of Saks, Neiman, and Bloomingdales can really influenced designers and suppliers. Designers send a lot of their mechandise to department stores, where they can benefit from the additional exposure, marketing, and volume sales. The shockwave of three major chains pulling the plug on petite sizing meant that staying in petites was a shaky proposition for any label. Ellen Tracy, in fact, announced that it would no longer carry petites - and also reversed its decision immediately after Saks did.

Can designers survive without department store support? Maybe, but it's sure harder without their help. Department stores like Saks have a huge influence on what gets made, what's in, and can try to force trends themselves.

And so its up to the department store to be more proactive with their designer relationships. I cannot help but heap blame again on the stores themselves for cultivating the 'dowdy' image that they hold of petites. As they have such a huge influence on designers on whether to even bother making a line, they surely can insist that the stuff better fit in (and fit better!) with the fashionable image they want to cultivate. Saks is taking a great lead and insists that when the petite section reimerges in the fall, it will inject more energy and variety into the section instead of just focusing on classic workwear. It realized it wasn't doing a good job addressing the lifestyle needs of its petite customer.

I wish Saks good luck - and I can't wait to check out the new section!

Petite Vindication in the NY Times!

A monumentous thing happened while I was in far away Providence land. A news story of particular interest to me hit the 'Most Emailed' list (and, as of this moment, is still #1) for the New York Times on Saturday. "Where's the Petite Department? Going the Way of the Petticoat" details the fazing out of petite clothing lines from high-end department stores. It was one of those "HAH! I told you so" moments when the article came sailing into my consciousness. I mean, if the New York Times is covering this particular snippet of fashion/business news, it's not exactly a tiny trend here. (find the full text here if above link doesn't work)

High-end department stores blame petite women for having such an "older, unfashionable and undesirable" image. And yet, it's hardly the fault of the short consumer to resign herself to this stuff if it's the only game in town. I've totally checked out the goods myself and find them...old, unfashionable, and undesireable. Hell, I'm sure even the older women that they're trying to target with such frumpy goods are going for the look either. Petite women who dress themselves from the petite selection can't help it - they don't really have alternatives besides going into the juniors department or spending horrendous amounts getting everything altered.

In Bloomingdale's at 59th and Lexington, I was in fact, directed to check out the selection in Tahari (definitely pricey, and definitely too long/tall). I guess they thought a young woman should know better than to be shopping in Petite's for God's sake! When I mentioned that things there were too long/tall/big/etc, the salespeople just kinda gave a shrug and said I can just get things altered. Just. As if it was completely beneath them to consider the hassle, cost, and general aggravation such a procedure would entail. Before moving to NYC, I figured that I'll find plenty of stuff that fits me in these expensive shops. Surely, if the clientele is most clearly willing to pay, they'd have stuff, I thought.

Wrong. Designer's in fact, do not "care about the little people." They want them, and apparently their fat wallets, to go to a land far far away. My brother (who is 5'5") and I (a stately 4'10") used to half-joke constantly about height discrimination. Being male, he certainly has it worse. Sure, everyone knows that Presidents and C-level executives are "supposed" to be tall and imposing. Ok, you can even posit that there's some slight edge to being taller there, but other components are also weighed in, so it's not completely about height. But it's a whole other thing when we're talking about selling clothes.

It's nothing short of discrimination (no, the pun was completely unintended). The most obvious sign is that the decision to slash the smaller sized departments is completely based on faulty irrational train of thought. The sales figures are in. Petite sales are growing, and high-end stores like Bloomingdale's do not want to service them! They do not want us rushing to their registers with willing dollars in hand. They do not want to revamp the 'image issue' that they themselves helped to create. They do not want us gushing to our friends and give them free advertising and loyalty just because they made us feel like everyone else. No, they don't want any of these things because in their minds, the decision has already been made. Because what good is our tenacious loyalty (albeit, we make up a smaller share) when customers like us make them cringe?

That's right, these stores have concluded that all petite women are old, frumpy and have no taste. Yes, disregard that petite just means short, for any age, income level, or any other socioeconomic index. Yes, disregard the fact that we're willing to pay more for the same thing if it fits because we know it's going to be produced in smaller batches and it's a pain in the ass to carry. Yes, disregard that you are educating your stores to redirect them to the "fashionable" sections of the store that they spend dollars in (and at their tailors). This judgement is hardly fair, as their sense of what we are is completely based on the clothing that they themselves decided to carry in the first place! And because they need to maintain a stylish and youthful image, these short rejects must be swiftly ejected from their stores before their presence taints the stores' name irredeemably.

These stores certainly have the clout and the volume to go back to their designers and distibutors and tell them to get their act together and to supply nicer and stylish clothes for the shorter set. It's certainly not a problem with short clients' unwillingness to spend. They've more than proven that since they are willing to shell out probably 20-50% more to get the regular-sized stuff altered. But, in the mind's of the decision makers, the decision has already been made.

At a very basic level, clothing is meant to make you feel safe and comfortable - both physically and emotionally. The trend-setters of the clothing industry has been doing a very shoddy job at both of these functions. I myself know that I would pay a lot more and be incredibly devoted to a company that would make me feel good about how I dress and how I shop. Instead, I quietly (well, not so quietly) suffer the indignities forced upon me by the way things are done. I am directed to children's departments. I am given the "sorry, but we really don't have a thing for you at all" talk from salespeople who are most definitely not sorry about it. I am told that I can pay a lot more to have the hems taken up, the seat yoke taken in, the darting move up, and the sleeves shortened for a shirt that will probably still look unflattering on me when it's done being dissected.

Indeed, the issue is not about indulgence or even convenience. It is completely about parity.