being a size?
Jul. 20th, 2005 09:15 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
keryxThere 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.
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.
Solution to chaotic size labels
Date: 2006-03-08 05:24 pm (UTC)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!