Hold your outrage: Lorna Jane did nothing wrong.

Lorna Jane advertised for a role open only to size 10s. And that’s completely fine.

If you’ve ever stepped foot into an Australian shopping mall, or spied a group of well-groomed women in the gym, chances are you’re familiar with Lorna Jane’s eye-catching activewear.

The colourful, pricey fitness label is synonymous with young, spritely 20-somethings and Sydney’s polished  ‘yummy mummy’ crowd (if you’ll excuse that dreadful phrase).

But yesterday, the brand made headlines for a whole other reason: A job advertisement specifying that applicants have very specific body measurements: Those of a size “small” or a 10, to be exact.

That advertisement — titled “Receptionist/Fit Model” — specified that applicants should have a waist measurement of 70-73cm, a hip measurement of 97-103cm, and a bust of 87-90cm.

It also said the successful applicant would be ‘comfortable with herself’ and would assist with ‘fittings of new garments’.

Once Crikey picked up on the story, the ad drew online criticism that, within 24 hours, had evolved into full-blown internet outrage.

It was pulled from job-seeking site Seek amid Twitter and Facebook remarks that it was ‘discriminatory’, ‘hypocritical’ and ‘disgraceful’.

According to angry commentators, the advertisement suggested ‘you have to have a certain waist size and bust size to get a job at Lorna Jane’, and the label was thus deserving of a lifetime boycott.

There’s something completely disgusting about a company arbitrarily requiring a receptionist to have prescriptive, lithe measuresments just to sit behind a desk, isn’t there? I mean, imagine applying to a secretarial position, only to be told your size 14 frame disqualified you from the running.

Shocking, isn’t it? Discriminatory, even!

Well, hold your outrage for just a minute, because that’s actually not what happened. At all.

Before you criticise Lorna Jane (and disclaimer: I have no affiliation with the brand), let’s review the facts:

The advertisement was for a dual role. One of those roles was a receptionist role — a job that, by all rights, shouldn’t discriminate based on looks.

But the other role was that of a “fit model”. Not a “fitness model,” as some critics misinterpreted the ad to mean- but an actual, specific industry role meaning, essentially, a human mannequin whose job is to stand still while clothes get fitted to ensure they’re true to size.

The industry term is explained in more detail by Lorna Jane in this Facebook post:

‘[A fit model is a]n in-house model… to assist with the fit of our activewear. A fit model ensures that we maintain consistency in our sizing across our entire range of different products. As you can imagine, we have a great variety of styles & fabrics and it is imperative that we keep our sizing as consistent as possible. Having a fit model allows us to do so….

As we hope you can understand, a fit model must have certain dimensions to help with our garment measurements.

Just so we’re clear, fit models exist in size 16. They exist in size 14. And yes, sometimes they’re needed in a size 10, because some women are size 10, and those women need clothes that fit their bodies.

And while we’re on the topic, the Speciality Fashion Group is reportedly advertising a similar role for plus-sized women’s fashion store Autograph, except they’re seeking a size 18+ model.

Okay, you might say, but isn’t it creepy that the “fit model” co-position was tacked to the end of a receptionist role — like some sort of ruse to get an attractive front-of-house staffer?

Well, not really. ‘Slashie’ roles are pretty damn common — similar to a university lecturer also running the intern program, or a nanny taking on housekeeping duties.

In this instance, as a Lorna Jane spokesperson told Crikey: “As a fit model is only required in a part time capacity, Lorna Jane felt it appropriate to combine this position with the part time receptionist role which is also currently vacant.”

Let me be clear: If Lorna Jane truly only hires size 10 women for roles where body size is completely irrelevant, that’s messed up, discriminatory and straight-out wrong.

But for now, my understanding is that (as Lorna Jane has reiterated to the ABC and elsewhere) the company prides itself on hiring women of all sizes.

This advertisement was at least in part a job that exists so makers of clothes get their size 10 fit right. Knowing all this, it’s clear that it would be absurd for a size 14 woman to do that job.

Industry insiders have also pointed out that receptionist/fit model jobs have been around for yonks: As Michelle Harvey posted on Facebook, for example: “This job role is not unusual… “I worked in the fashion industry 30 years ago and fit model/receptionist were around.”

So what was it that people were getting outraged about, again?

Lorna Jane’s Instagram account (post continues after gallery):

A few social media commentators defending Lorna Jane:

Related:

MIA: ‘In our rush to be outraged about everything, we dilute what’s truly shocking.’

Madonna draws outrage for her rape comments.

Lorna Jane, stop promoting non-evidence-based practitioners.