Armed with a gift card in my hand and Nordstrom love in my heart, I headed to the nearest Nordstrom Rack, in San Leandro, California, to do a little shopping.

The first thing I noticed is that Nordstrom Rack does not exactly provide the full Nordstrom Experience. I’ve been to Nordstrom proper many a time, and have had luck finding gorgeous clothes and fancy party dresses. Nordstrom also has impeccable customer service, making it a joy to shop there. Not so with Nordstrom Rack, which is more like shopping at a really really nice Ross Dress for Less. But of course, the prices are a lot lower, so that’s the tradeoff.

Whereas the selection at Ross is hit-or-miss (and mostly miss), the selection at Nordstrom Rack is amazing. (And they are expanding their plus size selection and adding plus to more stores starting September 15.) They have everything from Coach handbags to Bliss products to (of course) designer clothes, with a nice selection of plus sizes (I saw sizes up to 3XL and 26/28). My favorite thing about the Rack is actually the shoe section, as they have a great selection of shoes that go up to Women’s 13. My time was a little limited since I had a B-A-B-Y with me, but I found a lot of stuff to try on in an effort to put together a fall outfit. I was looking for something to wear when I go back to an office job in October, with “comfortable” being my main criteria.

The first thing I found was a pair of black Not Your Daughter’s Jeans. I’ve never heard of this brand before, but they are super comfortable. I was in love with this pair of pants the minute I put it on (original price $138). I paired it with an oversized striped Blu Seven top ($48) that says “fall” to me somehow. I’m also super into stripes! I added a Calvin Klein cropped shrug ($58) as a nod to the crisp San Francisco weather, and a super long, jet crystal necklace ($78) from the Nordstrom Crystal Collection. The original total cost was $322; my total before tax was $125.88 (pants $37.97, top $24.97, shrug $19.97, necklace $30.97). I saved almost $200! That’s almost enough for one of the purses I was drooling over!

fall outfit , a photo by mo pie on Flickr.

I also had picked out a pair of gold shoes (original price $78; my price $38.97) in size 11 1/2 to finish off the look. However, there was a slight customer service snafu, and I didn’t end up getting them. I didn’t get bad customer service, exactly, it just wasn’t particularly good. I should say that the dressing room attendant was very nice about accommodating me and the stroller that I had, and a woman restocking merchandise was very friendly, but the checkout experience wasn’t great.

I had picked out a shoe and had neglected to go to the “shoe mate” window because A) the baby had started crying, and B) I had no idea how the shoe mate window worked. I asked if I could pay for the shoes and then go pick up the second one; this is apparently against policy (which I understand) but I was told I had to go to the back of the store to get the second shoe, wait in the line again (which had gotten really long) and then pay for the shoes separately. Since the baby was fussy and hungry by that point, I simply had to put the shoe back. I think if I were at regular Nordstrom, someone might have been willing to either run back and get the shoe for me, or let me skip the giant register line that I’d already waited in once. But again, it was my mistake, and their policy makes sense.

Overall, if you’re a fan of Nordstrom and a fan of saving money on expensive Nordstrom merchandise, it’s definitely worth poking around Nordstrom Rack.

Want to try Nordstrom Rack out for yourself? One lucky winner will receive a $100 Nordstrom Rack gift card to create their perfect fall look! Simply leave a comment telling me what fabulous fall piece is a must-have in your wardrobe. Make sure to leave your email address! Sweepstakes runs 9/15-10/31. Visit the Promotions & Prizes section. Official Rules.

No duplicate comments.
You may receive (2) total entries by selecting from the following entry methods:
a) Leave a comment in response to the sweepstakes prompt on this post
b) Tweet about this promotion and leave the URL to that tweet in a comment in this post
c) Blog about this promotion and leave the URL to that post in a comment on this post
d) For those with no Twitter or blog, read the official rules to learn about an alternate form of entry.

This giveaway is open to U.S. Residents age 18 or older. Winners will be selected via random draw, and will be notified by e-mail. You have 72 hours to get back to me, otherwise a new winner will be selected. Good luck!

1. From Feed Me: Fat women are paid less than men in the workplace. So obviously, we should lose weight. Wait, what?

Fat women are paid less than women who aren’t fat; fat men, on average, earn comparable salaries to men who aren’t fat. So women are penalized by employers for being fat… All the young women who don’t identify as feminists because they don’t have to fly that flag anymore should take note of studies like this one. Gender discrimination is alive and well in 21st-century America.

But that’s not where the writer of this story went. No, her conclusion was quite different. She wrote, “It’s bad news, but maybe it will help fund better prevention strategies and new treatment methods for this growing scourge.”

Excuse me? Did I hear you right? The answer to discrimination is getting rid of the quality that’s being discriminated against?

2. From Already Pretty: the problem with “she shouldn’t wear that.”

[S]tylistic shoulds and shouldn’ts reinforce the idea that there are absolute rights and wrongs in clothing choices, tastes, and body shapes. Saying a woman “shouldn’t” wear something because of her figure supports the idea that there is one way to look good. And there isn’t. In fact, women who push social comfort levels with their stylistic choices may gradually force the observing public to accept that. Although some may prefer that women with cellulite conceal it, women with bony clavicles mask them, and women with zits apply cover-up, each woman is entitled to make her own choices.

3. The theme of the comp class I’m teaching this semester is feminism (actually, I told them it was unofficially called “F the Patriarchy”—it’s led to some terrific debate and discussion) and I shared this tidbit from Shakesville with them the other day. A headline reads “Man badly burned when girlfriend’s house set on fire” when, in actuality, he was her ex-boyfriend and stalker. And oh yeah, he set the fire.

[A]n amazing example of how violence against women is minimized in news reporting… the violent stalker is badly burned. His intended victims, who merely were doused with gasoline and terrorized, are OK.

4. From Womanist Musings: Gabourey Sidibe as “Mammy.”

There can be no denial that there are some people who will look at Gabourey and see mammy smiling back at them both consciously and unconsciously, yet that is not a function of her, but a function of Whiteness. When we use fat hatred to claim that her success is obscuring the talents of other Black women, we are only playing into the divisive strategy that Whiteness has long used to control people of colour. Even the Black women that some believe are deserving of greater accolades, are still perceived by Whiteness as fitting into either the jezebel or sapphire trope, and therefore; the way to divest ourselves of these horrible caricatures, is not to further demean another Black woman, but to defeat the idea that any of these labels are representative of Black womanhood. The entity that needs to disappear is mammy and not Gabourey.

5. Terrific satirical essay from Lesley about the importance of the “suffering ween.”

The sight of fat women is a heavy cross said men must bear every moment they step out into the public spaces where people congregate, be they city streets or shopping malls or public transportation or the dentist’s office. Their eyes burning as though filled with a raging fire, their inability to control their speech — the inescapable, uncontrollable need to instruct the offending woman on the pain she is selfishly causing them — this is hardly their fault! They must say something, in the hope that their words will drive the fat woman back into the shadows and thereby cause the unthinkable torture being imposed upon their enfeebled weens to finally relent. They cannot be responsible for the things they say and do while in such agony. We cannot rightly blame them when it is men, and the relative rigidity of their supremely important peckers, who are being attacked here, attacked by fat women who dare to allow themselves to be seen.

Pretty awesome collection of links, am I right? Let’s discuss in the comments!

The study shows that overweight women are twice as vulnerable as men, and discrimination strikes much earlier in their lives… The author of the study alleges that our culture has made it clear that judging someone based on race or culture is wrong, but the same societal pressure is missing for the differently sized. She says,

“we live in a culture where we obviously place a premium on fitness, and fitness has come to symbolize very important values in our culture, like hard work and discipline and ambition. Unfortunately, if a person is not thin, or is overweight or obese, then they must lack self-discipline, have poor willpower, etc., and as a result they get blamed and stigmatized.”

The main reason for this is the belief that a person has control over their size, which isn’t always true given factors like genetics and economics.

The interesting part to me is the poll, which asks if the law should protect the overweight from discrimination. Currently, “no” is winning by 64%, with comments like:

its a reality in my office that there are morbidly obese women who call in sick all the time and they frequently cannot perform the duties they were hired for.

It is wrong to discriminate, but if the person is frequently ill, and cost the company money, or cannot fulfill their obligations to their job, then a company should not be forced to keep them around to spare them their feelings.

I totally disagree with the idea that if you are obese you should be classified as handicapped. How about taking care of yourself, diet & exercise? If you are truly disabled that’s one thing, but being obese and carrying around a hanicapped placard while you walk into Home Town Buffet is wrong.

There are some people in the comments who are more sympathetic, and even people pointing out some of the logical fallacies in people’s anti-fat arguments. Still, it’s a little window into how people really feel about discrimination against people of size in the workplace: that it makes sense.

Thirty-eight percent of mothers in low-instability households were obese, while nearly 48 percent in high-instability households were obese.

The researchers rated household instability by taking into account parental stress (for instance, whether mothers felt alone or trapped by their responsibilities), financial instability and ability to keep food on the table.

We all know we’re facing a frightening economy right now, and I think there are a lot of people out there feeling financially unstable, and worrying about feeding their kids. We’ve talked about the link between poverty and obesity before—remember the revelation that poor, obese children actually weren’t eating enough?

Scott Marcus is a “Thinspirational” (gag) speaker, but does ultimately evince compassion for the people talked about in the study. He imagines this scenario:

“Hi Honey, I was laid off from work. Won’t that be grand? Now we have even more time to spend together. So I was thinking we take a day and do something fun. What would you like to do?”

“Well, let’s see. How ’bout if we try to pay our bills with too little money, stretch our food budget beyond the breaking point, almost declare bankruptcy due to medical bills, fight to stay in the house, and try and keep all the children quiet and content? That would be relaxing, wouldn’t it?”

“Can’t wait! Life’s just one big vacation, isn’t it?”

I guess what I’m getting at here is that we have no idea what kind of pressures people are under, and compassion instead of judgment and finger-pointing should rule the day. What are your thoughts on fat and the economy, or the fact that it is mothers (and not fathers or children) who are being discussed here?

I got an e-mail recently from a plus-size sex worker who keeps a blog called For Lovers of Curves.

I’m going to put most of this post behind a cut; although I don’t think it’s super NSFW, you never know! Anyway, her bio is:

I’m a gal in my early thirties, and I’ve just started working part time as an escort/callgirl/whore. I’m fat by the way. Well, BBW is one of the more polite terms. I’m a size 18-20. Most days I’ve made my peace with that, but I’d be a liar if I said I was 100% okay, 100% of the time.

She writes in detail about her sexual experiences, both professionally and non, and it’s a fascinating peek into that world. The reason she sent me an e-mail in the first place, however, had to do with the fact that agencies (through whom many escorts work) are not interested in listing her because—yep, you guessed it—she’s fat.

On days when I’ve been stood up by a client (again) I often think about agency work. There are always ads around for girls wanted. Every now and then I inquire. Polite emails that mention my size. To date I’ve only had one reply with a curt “We only take models to a size 10″…

But it stands to reason that even an exclusive agency would be trying to cater to everyone – and what do they do if some rich dude says – “Give me a girl with boobs out of this world”. Or even, “I wanna fuck a fat chick for laughs.” Not that I’d really want to do the second dude, but still… And if I’m keen to see them and be high-end, and they’re looking for me but can’t find gals like me, then why aren’t the agencies getting in on this action?

All I can figure is it comes to down to advertising. They have websites full of flowing locks and concave bellies. Maybe they think I’d bring down the tone of their establishment?

Maybe someone who knows or studies sex work can weigh in (ho, ho) on this topic. For what it’s worth, while walking through the Red Light District in Amsterdam, I did see women in the windows of a wide range of shapes, builds, sizes, ethnicities, and ages—presumably to cater to every taste. I guess I always assumed escort agencies would have the same kind of variety.

Man, if I can’t find a cute curvy girl the next time I’m at the Bunny Ranch, I’m going to be really disappointed.

One is a pair of black pants with red pinstripes from Torrid, size 18; the other is a light blue button-down shirt from Lane Bryant, size 14/16. If you’re interested in one of these, leave a comment! (And if you are in the same position as me and have anything you’d like to give away, feel free to post that in the comments as well.) It can be my good karma for the day!

Allow me to introduce you to the Chubby Maid Café, an establishment in Japan, started by a woman who worked at a “regular maid café” until she realized all the other women who worked there were much thinner than she was.

In researching what a “maid café” is, I discovered that it’s a “cosplay” (costume play) café, and that there are also “butler cafés.” According to Wikipedia, “The butlers in these cafés are well-dressed male employees and may wear either a typical waiter’s uniform or even a tuxedo or tails.”

Well, you learn something new every day! Of the chubby maid café, which is called Pomeranian, Jezebel says:

On the one hand, this restaurant basically caters to a fetish, like a Hooters with a weight minimum, and its entire point is to focus attention on the physical appearance of the female employees. Is it just another example of women being treated as objects? On the other hand, all of the waitresses interviewed seem to have a great relationship with their bodies in a culture that’s extremely diet-obsessed and where a woman is “supposed” to be tiny and slender. Should we be accepting of a place like Pomeranian?

Ichigo says: “I wish [girls] wouldn’t take their chubbiness as a negative thing. There are tons of girls out there who are chubby and attractive, so they should regard them as role models. Also, even if you notice that someone’s chubby, you shouldn’t comment on their weight so much [laughs]. It’s a unique trait of theirs, and that’s an important thing to have.”

Vice has the full interview, where you can also enjoy some delightful pictures and ponder the question: are these girls really all that “chubby”? You can also read full interviews with several of the maids who work there, like head maid Tsukasa:

[E]ven around here I’m on the larger side, so in that way I’m in keeping with the whole idea of the café itself. Being this size kind of suits me, so I guess customers who like chubby girls are attracted to me. But I’m not saying I love myself because of it.

That last line makes me wonder if Jezebel’s statement that the women universally seem to have “great relationships” with their bodies goes a little too far. You can also see Kozue (who, the interviewer points out, is the skinniest of the bunch):

I think the word “chubby” means different things to different people. For example, some people see Kanako Yanagihara [an overweight entertainer in Japan] as being “chubby,” but I personally think that “chubby” is just when you don’t fit into the clothes sold at normal clothing stores, which I don’t. So when I meet customers who have someone bigger like Kanako in mind, they often say that I’m pretty average-looking, slender even. It upsets me when they say that.

A fascinating glimpse into another culture and its attitudes toward and definitions of chubbyness. Thanks to Shannon for the link! (And after I wrote this, but before I posted it, Rachel also picked up the story! Check out her take.)

Pam: I’m sorry, ma’am. Macy’s does not cater to your size.
Me: I beg your pardon?
Pam: It’s a demographic thing, ma’am. We do not carry plus sizes of formal wear or business suits. We find, demographically speaking, that most of our upscale clientele is smaller, so we have a really large petites department and just the basics for our plus sized customers. It’s nothing against you, ma’am. It’s just demographics.
Me: Let me make sure I understand, please. Your “upscale” customers who buy party dresses and business suits are all petite? And your plus sized customers are not “upscale”?
Pam: Yes ma’am. The demographics tell us that plus sized women just don’t need social wear.
Me: So what you are saying then is that larger women don’t have good jobs and don’t go to parties.
Pam: That’s correct, ma’am.

Then Pam told Amanda that she should try a store that caters to women of color, who “tend to be larger.” Now, I’m sure the conversation did not go down exactly like this, but even if this is half-true, it has me concerned.

I get all my formalwear at Nordstrom, which has an outstanding selection of gorgeous dresses (like my party dress, hello) Has anyone been to Macy’s lately? Have you noticed a dearth of business and formalwear? What’s the real story here?

“This cake is sugar free and fat free, right? Ha, ha!”

“Hey [Guy Doing South Beach], is this South Beach cake?”

“Oh, can I just have a TINY SLIVER?”

God, way to destroy the experience of eating a piece of cake with soul-sucking “jokes” about how many calories it has. And of course, I spent the whole time eavesdropping on all my fellow cake-eaters so I quite frankly didn’t enjoy my slice of cake as much as I probably should have. I should have been present in the cake-eating moment, or something.

How about you? Does your office ever feature sugary treats, and if so, how do you deal with them? Are you afraid to be seen eating the first piece of cake? Do you keep a candy bowl on your desk? Do you make joking references to spending some extra time on the treadmill? Or do you just eat the damn cake?

So, what’s “healthy” according to the state of Alabama? Anyone with a BMI (body mass index) less than 35. Employees will also have to submit baseline readings for their cholesterol, blood pressure and glucose—three other factors considered critical indicators of “health”…

The program will allow employees to see a doctor for free, be screened for free, and have the chance to enroll in wellness programs, Weight Watchers, etc. And as long as they show progress in a follow-up screening they won’t be charged.

Fox News released a lengthy story about this earlier in the week:

This is a dreadful, dreadful policy,” said Judith S. Stern, an obesity expert and nutrition professor at University of California at Davis. “Overweight and obese people, especially women, feel that their weight is private, and being weighed at work is like having a prostate exam in the hall. It’s not appropriate”…

Medical and social considerations aside, other critics say it’s just not going to work. “There’s the thought that obese people are weak-willed, and if we charge them more they won’t be as fat,” Stern said. “This assumes they have control over what’s involved, and often they don’t”…

And there’s the cost factor. In its efforts to reduce heath care costs Alabama will spend an extra $1.6 million for health screenings and programs next year.

So, a great idea, then! Hey, why don’t other states join in?

Clarian Health Partners, a hospital chain in Indiana, has taken a different approach. In 2009, they will start deducting money from the paychecks of workers who do not meet — and don’t show efforts to meet — various health criteria. Smoking without trying to quit will cost $5; high glucose, high blood pressure and high cholesterol levels will cost $5 each; a high Body Mass Index will cost $10.

My first thought was that this extra charge is disproportionately penalizing, yet again, the economically underprivileged. The link between poverty and obesity is clear, and states with higher poverty levels have corresponding higher obesity levels—Alabama being, of course, one of these states. (And that’s without bringing race into the equation at all, although it is a factor in BMI calculations…)

It is those people—the obese poor—who will be hit the hardest by this $25 per month surcharge, which is a significant amount of money to many working people with modest incomes. In addition to everything else that’s wrong here, this strikes me as the wrongest part of all.