being a size?

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.

good media report

Also this morning, the Today Show [Your barometer of the Common Man! And Jude Law's personal life!] did some interesting progressive elaboration on John Roberts' history and why his nomination might be of concern.

They start from talking about how he's said in legal arguments that they (the conservatives he represented) believe Roe should never have been passed. And they're all "oooh, those wacky babykillers are gonna have a field day". To further make NARAL and NOW and others look like they're freaking out over one tiny comment they have commentators talk about how when he was last confirmed, he talked about how Roe was law and he had to uphold laws.

But. Then they come back and point out that the Supreme Court doesn't just enforce that kind of law, they make them, thus Roberts' nomination could in fact be a Very Bad Thing for reproductive freedom, and at the very least, he needs to be questioned about what he really meant when he said those two things. Between 7:30 and 8:30, it's like the show went from wholeheartedly embracing him to quivering in fear.

Which makes me think good thoughts about America, honestly.