Woman sparks furious debate after claiming plus-size Lululemon clothing should cost more
- Stepfanie Tyler posted a furious tirade to X about the cost of smaller sizes
- She said it is 'absurd and offensive' that 'normal-sized' clothes cost the same
- READ MORE: How Fat Pride became the battleground in America's culture wars
A woman is being slammed after claiming that plus-size clothing should cost more - unleashing a furious tirade to declare 'normal-sized people' shouldn't have to 'subsidize clothes for fats.'
Stepfanie Tyler shared the scathing post to X, previously known as Twitter, showing her Lululemon cart with two pairs of the same leggings - one in a size 0 and one a size 18.
The Canadian-American athletic apparel company, which sells high-performance athletic wear for yoga, running, and other activities with a cult-following among fitness fanatics, started selling plus-size clothing in 2020.
Tyler had highlighted the price for the Align High-Rise leggings - which retail for $98 - showing they were the same price no matter the size, and unleashing a furious rant, declaring she's 'done' with the athletic wear until they change the pricing.
'Until they stop making normal-sized people subsidize clothes for fats — there's NO REASON my size 0 leggings should be the same price as a size 18,' she wrote alongside the screenshot.
'It's absurd and wildly offensive to think we don't notice,' she added.
'It's wild how everyone here seems to be a "successful apparel business owner or entrepreneur"... why isn't this level of expertise reflected in the market? Why can't I find good clothes that fit?' Tyler wrote in a comment.
Her post was met with fury by many users on the platform, who accused her of being fatphobic.
A woman is being slammed after claiming that plus-size clothing should cost more - unleashing a furious tirade to declare 'normal-sized people' shouldn't have to 'subsidize clothes for fats'
'Wow way to be fatphobic,' one user wrote. 'Love that Lululemon keeps prices even across all sizes. Love that for them.'
'I'm a size 6 in Lululemon leggings and I'm very much cool with paying the same price for clothes as someone else purchasing an 18. That actually sounds very fair to me,' someone chimed in.
'Rage baiting, engagement seeking post,' another snarked.
'Please don't tell me you honestly believe the amount of fabric is the main factor for pricing clothing (especially Lululemon)…' pointed out another.
'What is wildly offensive is that for some companies, don't even carry sizes above a 16 or charge $5+ more for the same shirt as "normal' sizes,"' someone else hit back.
They continued: 'So sure, you can have your cheaper leggings for your smaller size if we can actually pay the normal price for clothes.'
'Who the hell pays $98 for leggings and complains about the cost? Gucci shoes cost the same no matter if they are a size 7 or a size 10,' another user pointed out.
In January, the fitness brand's former founder criticized the brand for chasing 'diversity and inclusion' above exclusivity.
Tyler claimed it was 'absurd and wildly offensive' that the brand was charging the same price
Lululemon likes to set itself apart from other sports brands, cultivating a following among trendy, well-to-do yoga enthusiasts
Her post was met with fury by many users on the platform, who accused her of being fatphobic
Chip Wilson, who quit as its chief executive nine years ago after making controversial remarks about how its leggings were becoming see-through, suggested some women were too overweight for its clothes.
Lululemon immediately distanced itself from Wilson's remarks, saying he had not been involved in the company since his departure – and stressing that it was proud to be diverse.
Wilson, who still holds millions of dollars in Lululemon shares, said the firm's new focus meant it was not doing enough to differentiate itself from fashion brands such as Gap.
He previously said in a Forbes profile: 'I think through this whole diversity and inclusion thing that they're trying to become like the Gap, everything to everybody.
'And I think the definition of a brand is that you are not everything to everybody... You have got to be clear that you do not want certain customers coming in.'
He also claimed that executives of the company were 'fearful' of bad press coverage and lived in fear of backlash.
Speaking about his own time heading the fitness clothing giant - when sizes did not go above a US size 12 - he said he didn't want people who were 'drinking Coke and Pepsi or eating McDonald's' wearing Lululemon.
