My friend Fumiko and I pondered this question over our lunch hour. I can’t seem to get my arms around the concept, for the following reasons:
1. Size options are a necessity in a world of differing people and varying needs. After all, most things in life come in different sizes: shirts, socks, sandals, Starbucks. How can a 6’4″ male athlete and a 5’3″ female be expected to finish the same-sized meal? When we go for Chinese takeout at lunchtime, who is that $5 combo platter meant for?
2. This mentality is contributing to America’s obesity epidemic. The idea is that “one size fits most” and the average person will be able to finish the portion, give or take a little more or a little less. Like a kid’s menu “for ages 12 and under,” today’s default food serving appears to be something along the lines of “serves large, active men and smaller.” If you happen to belong to the “and smaller” part of the equation, it’s your responsibility to determine when to curb your ever-hungry eyes.
3. We’re unfairly paying the same price for different levels of need. If you wanted to buy a 15″ analog TV, would it be fair to pay the same price as someone who wanted a 30″ plasma flat-screened HDTV? No one would stand for that. So why is a small woman willing to pay the same price for food as a large man?
4. If Starbucks can do it, how hard can it be? Enough said.