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

[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.