being a size?

[keryx]

There was a spot on the Today Show this morning [The Today Show - your finger on the pulse of America!] about 'vanity sizing' and the ever-evolving tendency of brands and designers to alter size numbers. The segment was clearly coming from the perspective that we are all very silly and easily fooled by designers 'flattering' us that we wear smaller sizes than we actually do.

Which is interesting. Is there really a One True Size 8? The number on a tag is just a number on a tag, barring the use of standardized size measurements, isn't it? The Torrid, for instance, likes to use 0-4; they're not numbers that correspond to anything - they're just the five sizes the store carries, numbered from 0 up because they used to not go as small (thus, started at 1). I actually like that better than their 12-26 sizes; the numbers feel more rational.

I have always been a little weirded out by the whole idea that a women is a size, which I remember seeing when I was 10 and reading those Sweet Valley High books. Both twins were referred to often as 'being' size 6. I think that was supposed to call up an image of slim perfection.

Finally coming to my point - all the women talking on the show this morning clearly had some aspect of their identity tied to being a certain size, but they all seemed pleasingly shocked to find they now matched a different, lower, number than they had in the past. Lower was better, thus I suppose the appeal of 'vanity' sizing - and I bet it's that same SVH idea that a size is a numeric indication of relative perfection.

Comments

[libskrat]

Earlier in the century, this used to happen with shoes and shoe sizes. Because women were supposed to have little dainty feet (sez she of the size-11 clodhoppers).

Me personally, I'd be thrilled to move to a measurement system.

[peregrin8.livejournal.com]

Me personally, I'd be thrilled to move to a measurement system.

Me too! I do not understand why men get waist/inseam and women get one arbitrary number with no physical referents.

[catchstars.livejournal.com]

I hate women's jeans that use "short", "regular", or "tall" as the inseam measurement. What are these things compared to? It ticks me off how I can be a regular in one brand, but a short or a tall in others.

what's in a size?

[orkid.livejournal.com]

i have never known there to be a standard for women's sizes from manufacturer to manufacturer. the clothes that fit me can be sized anywhere from 6 (rarely) to 12, depending on the cut. i can imagine how maddening that must be for women who identify themselves in terms of size.

thrift stores are good for escaping this problem, because the hodgepodge of eras and styles demands that one ignore (sometimes absent) labels and try things on. and sewing one's own (for those who know how and have the inclination) can be a truly liberating experience.

[jane-ire.livejournal.com]

It seems like there must be some kind-of standard for sizing that exists, at least for use within the industry. But (and I've given this a lot of thought in the past) clothing designers then choose to assign random numbers to those sizes that are relative only to each other within that brand. So while I could be a size 0 in one brand, I could easily wear a 4 in another, etc. I think this "relative sizing" (my term) is much more prevalent in younger women's clothing, as the more I shop for professional attire the more the sizes seem to correspond across brands. Then, this would make the ability for women to identify with a particular size a realistic conception of themselves.

Also, I totally remember the Sweet Valley High books. I think that if they were written today, the twins would no longer be a size 6. In today's world teens have the Lindsay Lohan's to compete with and compare themselves to.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

True, it doesn't seem like a "size 6" is a standard anymore (if it was to begin with).

[firecat]

Every once in a while I get into a fussy mood and start correcting people who say "I am a size X" where X is a fashion industry designation. It makes more sense to say "I wear (or take) a size X."

It pisses people off to be corrected, unsurprisingly. :)

But I still think that some people who automatically say "I am a size X" are making their clothing size too important as a part of their identity.

I guess the show backs up my theory.

[keryx.livejournal.com]

You'd also appreciate one woman's comments: I feel like I lost 20 pounds (said with glee) - there are so many bizarre nuances of that. I mean, I doubt she actually feels physically lighter, but it obviously has other meaning.

[puzzlement.livejournal.com]

I don't know if other women have this, but I don't own scales and I have often been wrong about the direction my weight is going in (I'm losing it when I thought I was gaining, or vica versa -- I end up finding out when my parents tell me). So it is actually possible that she's getting a "I must have lost weight" buzz when she unexpectedly fits into a smaller number.

[puzzlement.livejournal.com]

In Australia at least there are actually relatively standard sizes: adult women go from size 6 - size 18+ (stores with big clothing will call themselves an "18 plus store"), where size 6 would fit very petite women. I wear size 12-16 depending on what area of my body is having clothes fitted. Barring my height 'issues' I can be reasonably confident of walking into a store, grabbing a size 14 off the rack and getting a piece of clothing that at least sort-of fits. That sounds better than the situation you describe.

As I understand it, the numbers are currently based on a 1920s sizing guide that was in turn based on a contemporary study of Australian women's various measurements. I believe some parts of the industry are starting to re-do this study for modern women but tend to refuse to release the results to the press for competitive reasons. I understand the gist of it is that we're fatter but not all that much taller. (Damn! I was hoping to get some longer inseams out of it!) While I don't know whether this is going to mean that mainstream stores move from stocking 8-16 to 10-18. or whether each size is going to get bigger a la vanity sizing I don't know.

[miffyness.livejournal.com]

Heh, when I was reading the Sweet Valley books I didn't know US sizes differed from British ones and was like 'they're sixteen and they're size six? Are they anorexic or something?' In those days a UK size six was unheard of, but now they're nearly everywhere (my sister wears them, and I wouldn't say she was super-skinny). I can't say, though, that I've noticed much change at the 12/14 end of things (they remain basically interchangeable depending on which shops you frequent) so obviously clothes manufacturers don't care so much about flattering the non-super-slim.

i am a 14

[missmeridian.livejournal.com]

i hadn't really thought about my 14-ness, until i saw this - that woman looks just like me! i'm a 14! i don't feel bad or good about it, just like, hey, there's a woman with my tummy and thighs, i wonder where she shops for jeans?

Solution to chaotic size labels

[(Anonymous)]

The British Standards Institute has come up with a solution to the chaotic way clothing sizes are labelled. Known as BodyDim, drafted to BS-
EN 13402, this standard calls for actual measurements in centimeters. It also calls for a pictogram, making it intelligible worldwide. I have been ready for this since 1983, when my measurements went metric. BS-EN13402 was drafted in 2003. I think it will be a HIT in France, where the metric system was created, in Japan, where people are in a hurry, in China and India, with their growing economy, and in Scandinavia, where people have more progressive ideas. The USA is likely to be slow to accept BodyDim due to the stigma of being a size 60, 70, or bigger!