Full Figured Fashion Week Founder Gwen DeVoe Responds To Julien Macdonald, Tells Him To Get A Life (VIDEO)

This year's Full Figured Fashion Week is under way, bridging the gap between plus-size consumers, designers and retailers. According to founder Gwen DeVoe, plus-size customers spend a collective $25 billion dollars on apparel each year. She thinks the fashion industry has made some progress on the full-figure front, but has some way to go. DeVoe also had some harsh words for Julien Macdonald, a judge on "Britain's Next Top Model," who recently called plus-size models a joke.

WATCH:

Comments

[fortyfiveseventy]

04:32 AM on 06/29/2010

Big is beautiful! Curves are what dudes want.

[Glen L Johnson]

01:40 PM on 06/21/2010

As a participant in Full Figured Fashion week I think those that criticize do so out of ignorance and should not even be talked about. With that being said it does not matter if the garment is available in Target or the most exclusive shop in t country it should be there in plus-sizes as well as straight sizes end of story.

[michelle3657]

10:15 PM on 06/20/2010

like it or not, julien is right when it comes to actual designer clothing that you see in london, milan, paris and new york. overweight (let's not euphemize here) models can destroy the integrity of some designs. and i've worked in the luxury fashion world for over 12 years now -- as a size 10 myself, not some 2 -- and i can say definitively that larger women will not pay for expensive clothing. they wait for it to go on sale. twice. and i have seen them try to squeeze into things much too small for them, ruin it and declare the clothes mis-sized.

granted, sizing scales do need to reflect a more realistic adult woman. i'm an XL in knitwear, which is ridiculous. i should be a M. agreed on that point.

but. if it takes twice as much fabric to make a size 16 as a size 2.....why should the outfit be priced the same? the size 16 should be at a higher price to account for the increased cost. a size 2 should not have to subsidize additional raw materials needed to make larger clothing. furthermore, each size that a designer makes requires new patterns and it's not worth it to grade additional sizes when historical sales have shown those sizes won't be purchased in large enough quantities to account for the additional cost. that's why designers leave it to the targets, lane bryants, and private labels of the world to clothe overweight women.

[dstanley]

08:39 AM on 06/21/2010

So why don't designers just make clothes for little people? They require even less cloth per outfit!

[michelle3657]

10:07 AM on 06/21/2010

intelligent response. thanks for your thoughtfulness.

[MsVella]

11:24 AM on 06/21/2010

Excellent post

[RachelMc]

12:22 AM on 06/20/2010

well they are plus sizes. bout time u see real plus size besides avg size 10 being called plus size. but just because one wears a smaller size dont mean they are anorexic when most who wear those sizes 0,1,2,3,4....are not 6ft tall like the models but are 5ft -5'3" and therefore normal sized.

[Reticent]

03:29 PM on 06/19/2010

Sure sure. 99% of the population with breasts and a different set of reproductive organs who are NOT a size 0 or 2 are worthless human beings who do not matter. Sure. Check out the latest genetics research on the evolution of human bodies. The trend is NOT to tall, emaciated, and white but squat, strong, and flexible bodies. Not simply because of predictive reproduction rates (although models are the script for infertility), but the actual advantages and better genes research. The rich penis selection point of view has no basis in science. And on this father's day weekend, the latest research about the roles of males in primate groups is amazing. The Hunter gatherer model for us is dead (it is an all gather, gather, gather, ooh lucky meat! model), and the more integrated males are across all primate types in complex social interactions the healthier the groups and individuals.

[walruswheedchick]

09:50 AM on 06/21/2010

our ancestors weren't fat. period. they weren't fat because they needed to be fit, strong, and flexible to hunt game. now where do people who are plus sized come in this picture? your post, btw, is confusing.

[Reticent]

11:52 AM on 06/21/2010

It seems you, like many, make the mistake of conflating plus sized with "fat". Body fat is necessary to survive, and even in the most archaic evolutionary models being able to get and maintain a healthy percentage of body fat was necessary to survive. What passes for "plus sized" is often healthy- height and body type factored in. In fashion, anyone over a size 6 is considered a plus size, one of the dumbest things ever to come down the marketing pike. And I don't know who your ancestors were, but until the 20th century, across cultures, having extra body fat was considered not only healthy, but a sign of wealth. Primarily because people also walked every where, and had physical every day activities that kept them healthy. Fat is less the problem in our culture than too little physical activity, even for thin people. Too bad you are confused.

[RACVC]

10:09 AM on 06/19/2010

"...plus-size customers spend a collective $25 billion dollars on apparel each year."
This is not a joke and anyone who would not appreciate the marketing need is a f00l.

[dulceburro]

06:50 PM on 06/18/2010

But, I think they cheapen it by selling to target? Good business sense it right.

[GraceNotes]

10:44 AM on 06/19/2010

Many designers of women's clothing sell their designs through Target, for women of all sizes. Target offers women who want stylish clothing to be able to afford it even though we don't possess the bank account of the wealthy. We may admire the look of Cindy McCain, for one example, but very few of us can afford de la Renta.

[ChaiKat]

03:21 PM on 06/19/2010

Very well said! Fanned!

[RachelMc]

12:17 AM on 06/20/2010

i think michelle wore a dress from target.