Plus-size entrepreneur faces stiff opposition

15th January 2009

Plus-size entrepreneur faces stiff opposition

posted in Fat Bias, Legal Issues, Race Issues |

The salon I visit is located in a mall and across from a Victoria’s Secret shop. Each time I go in for a root touch-up or a cut and style, I pass by a double storefront window display brimming with ridiculously-thin mannequins in various stages of undress and sexy lingerie. There are more than 1,000 Victoria’s Secret stores across the nation, located mostly in malls and strip malls often populated by families and children. The chain’s annual runway shows — and their revealing, fasting-to-be-thin models — often make the headlines of newspapers and magazines across the globe.

So, why would a woman who wants to operate what is essentially a Victoria’s Secret-like shop for plus-size women be accused of being “unclassy” and face stiff opposition in setting up shop?

That’s the accusation and justification lodged by Redford Township, Mich. officials at Rochelle Allen, owner of Fancy Lingerie Plus, a plus-size intimate apparel shop specializing in the sale of undergarments, girdles and pantyhose. Allen hopes to open a brick-and-mortar shop to complement her burgeoning online business. Because of the nature of the products sold and clientele served, the shop would serve customers individually, by appointment only.

Allen wants to open a shop in Redford., a largely middle-class area of about 51,000 people, but her efforts there are being stymied by township officials who have been giving her a hard time for months about places where she could open shop. Allen says she originally looked at a location across from City Hall last year, but officials vetoed that idea. Understandable, in a sense, but when Allen tried to open in a space that used to be an adult entertainment store, the city said that she would not be able to sell any adult toys, books, magazines, games or videos and mandated that any mannequins in the windows would need to be “properly covered.”

Now Allen wonders if there’s any space in Redford where she can do business, unobstructed and harassment-free. As reported in Click On Detroit:

“I mean, if I open up my store in Redford, are they going to try and ticket my customers? Tow their cars away? Are they going to put speeding traps up?” Allen said. “I have to look at things like that but I also look at it as anything worth having is worth fighting for. I’m going to continue to fight.”

The Detroit News reported on Monday that Allen’s battle began in August, when she appeared before the township’s Site Committee seeking approval for the location across from City Hall. One day after the “heated meeting” — in which an “angry mob” hurled insults at Allen — the township building chief, Allan Hoard, was suspended and was later let go — the Detroit News story on this is now available only by purchase, but you can still read a cached version here. Some people speculate that the firing came because Hoard said Allen’s shop met township rules and that there was no reason to bar it from opening.

The story does not specifically name the fact that Allen’s is a plus-size shop as the reason for township officials’ objections, but the fact that Allen alone is facing so many objections and obstacles certainly raises questions as to why she’s being singled out. Redford is a suburb of economically-depressed Detroit — shouldn’t officials be encouraging new business and entrepreneurship? The location Allen hopes to open in was a former adult entertainment venue — why only now have township regulations on adult-oriented businesses become more stringent? A look at Allen’s website, which carries all of her apparel plus some other intimate body products, shows that her business isn’t so very different from, say, Victoria’s Secret. Victoria’s Secret has multiple locations in the vicinities around Redford — why is Allen’s shop being treated differently?

There are other forces at play, especially from those conservative numbers of Redford folk who are convinced that Allen’s is a sex shop. Allen, who is black, also believes racism is a factor. The Detroit Native Sun reports this exchange between Redford Township Supervisor Roger Miles Handy II and Allen during the August meeting:

“Take that to 8 Mile. We don’t want your type of traffic here,” Handy allegedly yelled.

“What do you mean my type of traffic? I assume it’s the color of my skin,” replied Allen.

And I thought Cincinnati was conservative. Even here Larry Flynt’s Hustler store is located just one block from the city’s convention center and only several blocks from City Hall. One local Redford business owner and Hoard supporter charged that Handy “runs this town like a dictator.” Perhaps this is among the reasons why he was defeated in the August primary. His term ended in November, but Allen’s battle wages on.

Allen said then that she planned to file a discrimination lawsuit against Redford, claiming the attack was racially motivated. The editorial in the Detroit Native Sun opines that Handy was not referring to Allen’s race, but that his comment was more associating Allen with “porn and strip clubs.” Even giving Handy the benefit of the doubt, I fail to see how an intimate apparel shop that, at most, may show lingerie-clad mannequins qualifies as either. Valerie Lockhart, the Sun’s executive editor, publisher and writer of the linked editorial had this advice for Allen:

“Instead of playing the race card, deal yourself a new hand. Present full figure women in a respectful manner – free of fishnet body suits and peek-a-boo bras. Then you’ll not only be able to play in the game, but can win the game as well.”

I wonder if the term “full figure” women is key here for Lockhart. Does she object to all lingerie, or just that for plus-size women? Is showing “full figure” women in a “respectful” manner a euphemism for cover-up-your-fat? Does Lockhart raise the same objections to Victoria’s Secret and their line of bras and lingerie as she does to Allen’s line of Just My Size and Playtex bras and baby doll nighties? And since when has being treated with respect and equal, non-biased consideration become a “game”?

Regardless of the motivations of township officials, harassing a would-be business owner and threatening her clientele — now that’s unclassy. For shame, Redford, for shame.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 at 2:53 pm and is filed under Fat Bias, Legal Issues, Race Issues. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

1 On January 15th, 2009, vesta44 said:

Race probably does play a part in Redford’s problem with Allen’s store, but I’m betting a big part of it is that they don’t want to see fat female mannequins in various states of undress. You know that if they don’t mind seeing barely nude emaciated mannequins at Victoria’s Secret that it’s a fat-phobic thing. After all, fat women are not sexy and don’t have the right to even think that someone might find them desirable and want to see them in sexy lingerie. Fat women are supposed to hide in tent-like clothing and stay at home so no one has to look at their disgusting fat (sorry, dudes, it ain’t happening). It’s no wonder that Redford is a dying area, they don’t care about bringing new businesses in unless they meet their definition of “appropriate”.

posted on January 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

2 On January 15th, 2009, Miriam Heddy said:

I love how calling out someone on racism is “playing the race card.” That editorial in the “Detroit Native Son” was just horrid. The entire notion of “playing the race card” presumes that racism is some sort of *game* rather than an institutionalized system in which those who have unexamined privilege can, in the name of “enlightening the community,” advise a black woman to just be more presentable and *maybe* she’ll be acceptable.

posted on January 15th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

3 On January 15th, 2009, sarah said:

Great post. Admittedly, the merch on her website is a little more “Frederick’s” than “Victoria’s,” but then again, there was a Frederick’s of Hollywood in my hometown (Syracuse, NY) mall. It hardly seems that a venue that used to house a sex shop would be an inappropriate place for a little racy lingerie, especially since she also sells more mainstream foundation garments. I strongly suspect the interlocking systems of oppression here–I’m thinking race *and* size (with maybe a touch of gender) are working together in an ugly way.

posted on January 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm

4 On January 15th, 2009, pennylane said:

It’s very interesting how certain bodies are immediately viewed as vulgar. I think Sarah is right that this is both race and size. It seems like the VS bodies are sexy without being sexual while non-standard bodies (whether by race, size, etc.) are sexual without being sexy. If that makes sense.

posted on January 15th, 2009 at 5:24 pm

5 On January 15th, 2009, Cara said:

I will be buying from this woman. I don’t care about race – I care about women of my size (22, oh my g-d!) able to buy things that make them feel sexy. I’m from Michigan, as well – Redford’s a bunch of hicks to begin with. Ms. Allen ought to open in a town not so limited by provincial ideas.

posted on January 15th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

6 On January 16th, 2009, David Kamatoy said:

What an insane situation. While people have the right to there opinion. lol It seems to me that this is ripe for litigation of some kind. Taking an aggressive stance versus a reactive stance is definitely going to change things.

I think communities should have some say in what shops can be deemed appropriate but precedence and context would seem to favor the business.

The inference here is that, “We don’t want a Fat Black Woman to open a Lingerie store for other Fat People, we would rather look at Thin (White) Victoria Secret Models, continue to stand on high moral ground and pretend that people of every other shape and size don’t have the right to dress or shop provocatively.” am I reading between the lines here.

The Question to the Community is…

Would you be against this store if it was Victoria’s Secret Opening?

If the answer is No then it’s a racism issue.
If the answer is Yes then the opinion is valid but terribly communicated.

The Question to the Business Owner…

Do you want to expend your energy on fighting this or simply opening a store somewhere else. Is it worth it?

I hope people can learn from this type of racism and that the business owner makes a decision based on how she wants to really expend her energy.

I am looking forward to the updates. The greater wish is simply that people stop identifying each other as THOSE PEOPLE.

Ultimately we are more the same than we are different. Be nice people.

posted on January 16th, 2009 at 7:29 am

7 On January 16th, 2009, Richard Mullen said:

There are plenty of fat people of ALL races so I don’t see how this is a racial thing. Secondly, those models in the VS stores are not that thin. You don’t see the bones in their faces and almost all of them have rounded hips, full breasts,etc. The ones on the catwalks might be. Lets not hate on fit or fat people.

Most people want to see nearly nude fit people over fatter ones. That is just the majority. Ever see fat men on billboards or being used to market towards women? Not likely.

posted on January 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am

8 On January 16th, 2009, Rachel said:

Lets not hate on fit or fat people.

No one here is hating on anyone, Richard. And while I give kudos to Victoria’s Secret for showing diversity in the skin tones of its mannequins, its mannequins are not representative of the average women — in fact, most are thinner than 98 percent of women. If the Victoria’s Secret mannequins were real women, based on theoretical body fat percentage, they’d probably have ceased to menstruate.

Most people want to see nearly nude fit people over fatter ones.

Assuming this is true and assuming this is the reason, it’s still no reason for a municipal body to discriminate against a would-be business owner.

posted on January 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am

9 On January 17th, 2009, Bree said:

I don’t buy that this is just about the concern over soft porn items. I truly believe that this town just doesn’t to see an intimate store that caters to fat women, period. There may be an undercurrent of racism here, but I think any woman trying to open a store like this, regardless of skin color, would get a hard time.

If you take a look at her website, the models are the typical standard plus size models even though her sizes can be worn by ladies who are a 26/28.

The possible bottom line? Fat women, especially women like me who are 3X and up, don’t deserve sexy clothes and intimates and should only wear muumuus, baggy clothes, and pajamas. It is a shame that so many people are freaked out by the sight of nothing more than extra body tissue and if that’s the only thing that scares them, they should take a long reality check.

posted on January 17th, 2009 at 8:37 pm

10 On January 19th, 2009, Rochelle Allen / President of Fancy Lingerie Plus said:

I would like to thank everyone that supports what I am doing. I think that all plus size women have the right to look and feel sexy like any small woman. I have search and still searching for the vendors that make sexy lingerie for plus size women. Me being a plus size woman know how hard it is to stay sexy and to find sexywear for my size. I will love to hear your comments rochelle@fancylingerieplus.com

Thank you

posted on January 19th, 2009 at 7:57 pm

11 On January 21st, 2009, Richard Mullen said:

I agree with you Rachel on the fact there is no good reason to discriminate. It is also counterproductive and anti business. Just because I prefer a size 2-4 does not mean I would object to cashing in on selling to larger people. I say “good for you” to Rochelle for having her business and catering to those who feel left out of the loop. It is not business we should be scrutinizing, it’s those politicians that for some odd reason think booze and porn shops are OK but selling plus sized lingerie is abhorrent. I hope you make millions Rochelle and those idiot politicians realize they lost valuable businesses tax dollars.

posted on January 21st, 2009 at 4:26 pm

12 On April 13th, 2009, danielle said:

I think that the last acceptable prejudice is that against overweight people. Its totally acceptable to call someone names because of their weight an now you can’t even open a plus size store! I can’t count how many times I have heard comments made about plus size women who were wearing clothing that did not fit appropriately. The reason some of that do that is they end up having to shop a very limited selection cause no one caters to this market. I think its great that someone is offering a larger ladies store cause not everyone fits that victoria secrets mold and it should be supported

posted on April 13th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

13 On May 5th, 2009, Metal said:

This is absolutley nuts. Are we still living in America? We can’t advertise to plus sized women? Some people find skinny women vulgur and repulsuve so what’s the diff?

posted on May 5th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

14 On August 6th, 2009, Valerie Lockhart said:

I ran across your website, while doing followup research on Fancy Lingerie Plus, of Redford. I appreciate all of the comments made, regarding equal rights being afforded to women of all shapes, colors and sizes.

In the preceding article, I noticed that quotes were taken from an article published by the Detroit Native Sun.

I just wanted to clear up some probable misconceptions.

First, I am an African American woman. I am an advocate for equal rights of “all” individuals. It was instilled in me at an early age with my grandmother being a labor activist and one of the founders of the Service Employees Union Local 79 and my grand-uncle being a civil rights activist and president of the NAACP Kansas branch.

During Rochelle Allen’s ordeal, I was to share the building in which she sought occupancy and was denied. We went to court together, and our cases were heard back to back. My business was approved and occupancy was granted. Therefore, her denial could not be racially motivated. Plus, there was an African American on the board reviewing both cases. The owner of the building, Leo Snage, who is an influential person in Redford, was also present.

Many of the opponents raised legitimate questions and concerns that “were not” racially motivated.

Unknown to Redford officials and other media who reported on the story, Ms. Allen lied about the intent of her business. I was privy to this information during private conversations, since we were going to be sharing the building. She told the court that the business would be by appointment only. She also said that it was the first of its kind business in Michigan and that the environment would be friendly enough for children to walk in.

This is not the case. The business, which was moved to 27104 Plymouth in Redford, is open to the general public, which is fine. However, I do not think that Redford permits lingerie fashion shows to be presented in the store. There are no window coverings, making such viewing accessible to the general public and children.

Ms. Allen also admitted in emails to the Detroit Native Sun that she is using a fictitious name. “I don’t think Rochelle Allen is even a
real name,” she wrote.

She has lied about her educational background, residency, nature of her business and other things. These things were spoken before several credible witnesses. Now, she’s saying that her “real” name isn’t even Rochelle Allen.

I guess “Rochelle Allen” or whoever she really is fooled all of us.

Pick up the September issue of the Detroit Native Sun for a follow-up on this story or visit online at http://www.detroitnativesun.com.

Thank you, and keep up the good work.

P.S. I’m also a plus sized woman (size 14), and I love every pound of me!

Valerie Lockhart
Sun Publisher & Executive Editor

posted on August 6th, 2009 at 3:00 pm

15 On August 6th, 2009, Rochelle Allen said:

Please post This Comment.

I would like to say to everyone that Valerie Lockhart/Detroit Native Sun is making a false Statement.

We never went to court together. We only went in front of the site committee meeting together one time. The Site committee wanted to reschedule me for another date.

I have no need to lie about my education witch I hold a college degree and that all she need to know. After fighting with the city of Redford about the building on Beech Daly I decided to move my store to a new location. The facts still remains that I was disrespect on so many levels. Valerie Lockhart was never present for that meeting or any other meetings then the one time.

I think that her customers and friends should beware of Valerie Lockhart/ Detroit Native Sun. She pose as a friend and then stab you in the back by running background checks on you just to get a story.

I would have never thought that she would have betrayed me like she did. Yes I did tell Valerie Lockhart that my Rochelle Allen was part of my name which is true. Maybe I shouldn’t have said, who is Rochelle Allen? but at that time I couldn’t believe what she had done. I never had a NOBODY run a background check on me unless I had applied for a job. What gives her the right? At that time wanted to shield my personal life from her. I knew at this point she was desperate for a story.

I have no reason to lie about something I don’t have. I have worked very hard to get here and I will never let someone like her take that away from me. She can say all she wants about having credible witnesses. The only thing her witnesses can say, I have college degree and what type of business I own.

As far as my business being the first of its kind in the DDA. That would be true. That was wrote in the The Detroit News by a memeber of the site committe that did his home work. That was a surprise to me.

Let me not forget to say how I got started with Fancy Lingerie Plus LLC. Customers knew me as a Manager at different Companies. That have followed me since my frist show. My customers are all about looking and feeling sexy.

I have no need to explain who I am to Valerie. She has never been a customer of Fancy Lingerie Plus, because if she had maybe she would have realize who I am.

I went in front of the city of Redford recently to have a restriction removed from my store and was granted. I have lived up to everything I said my store would be.A Lingerie Store Created for Plus Size Woman and have stood by my every word. The only person who is scared about my success is Valerie Lockhart.

Rochelle Allen
President of Fancy Lingerie Plus L.L.C.
“Created for Plus Size Women”

posted on August 6th, 2009 at 11:09 pm

16 On August 7th, 2009, Valerie Lockhart said:

We’re not going to make this a verbal boxing match. Miss Allen needs to stop trying to play the role of victim.

As an award winning journalist, I prefer to present the facts in writing. I was also a former writer at the Detroit News. Unfortunately, the reporter, who did the story on Miss Allen (if that is her real name) “did not” verify his/her facts, and I stand by that.

She is “not” the first or only lingerie store operating in Michigan that caters to plus sized women. A listing of other stores in the metro-Detroit area was presented in my initial story. Therefore, it is unfair to downplay the contributions of those who paved the way for others like Allen, to open such stores.

The article in September will present various lies told by Allen to make herself appear bigger than she really is.

All reporters should verify information being presented before writing any story. At least that is what I was taught at the University of Detroit Mercy, which is a tier 1 and nationally ranked university. It is understandable that Allen would express her discontent, since she has been caught in many lies.

It’s unfortunate that someone would lie about their educational and work history. As you can see from Allen’s response, the educational system has apparently failed her. What school would award a degree to a student like that?

The final straw was when Allen denied that her name is “Rochelle Allen” and said that no such person exists.

Remember, the truth will set you free. Don’t tell lies.

posted on August 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

17 On August 7th, 2009, Valerie Lockhart said:

There is one more point that I forgot to make. It is routine for most corporations to perform background checks on their employees, especially if they’re being considered for a position on the executive or management level. How did Miss Allen escape this, if she has worked in management?

Again, “all” reporters should verify the information being presented to them or note comments made in quotes from the person making the statement.

You would especially check it, when the person providing the information changes their statement several times.

Why does she feel the need to keep defending herself or changing up her lies, when “she’s not” Rochelle Allen? Why would anyone feel the need to defend a fictitious person? That’s the same as someone defending Wonder Woman or Batman.

Case closed.

posted on August 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm