rose_griffes (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rose_griffes) wrote2013-03-20 08:47 pm
rose_griffes) wrote2013-03-20 08:47 pm
Entry tags:
two links and something to listen to
I dove back into the whole vanity-sizing 'scandal' a week ago. Two links:
Why clothing sizes make no sense, on slate.com. The nonsense has a lot to do with modeling women's clothing sizes on shoe sizes: an arbitrary number that doesn't say any actual measurements. Add in that the women whose measurements were taken for the earliest sizing chart were all white, and that they were paid (and therefore potentially more poorly nourished than the average American woman at the time), and you have a recipe for unusability right from the start. (Also factor in that we have curves that men don't have, and it's hard to imagine how a usable size chart could be created at all.)
The Myth of Vanity Sizing examines some of those same factors. No denying that we in the US are getting larger, but the author of this post examines what else is going on in the fashion industry that leads to changing the numbers.
Whether vanity or industry practicalities, the end result is the same: we're getting bigger, the clothing labels are adjusting, and if you're on the lower end of that bell curve, you might find yourself wearing a 00, or XXS, or not finding your size at all in stores.
And now for something completely different: British jack-of-all trades Stephen Fry does a lovely take-down of the snobbery of language purists. I'm embedding the video; personally I listened to just the audio and worked on other mindless things, rather than watch the text moving all around. Definitely worth a listen, though.
Why clothing sizes make no sense, on slate.com. The nonsense has a lot to do with modeling women's clothing sizes on shoe sizes: an arbitrary number that doesn't say any actual measurements. Add in that the women whose measurements were taken for the earliest sizing chart were all white, and that they were paid (and therefore potentially more poorly nourished than the average American woman at the time), and you have a recipe for unusability right from the start. (Also factor in that we have curves that men don't have, and it's hard to imagine how a usable size chart could be created at all.)
The Myth of Vanity Sizing examines some of those same factors. No denying that we in the US are getting larger, but the author of this post examines what else is going on in the fashion industry that leads to changing the numbers.
Whether vanity or industry practicalities, the end result is the same: we're getting bigger, the clothing labels are adjusting, and if you're on the lower end of that bell curve, you might find yourself wearing a 00, or XXS, or not finding your size at all in stores.
And now for something completely different: British jack-of-all trades Stephen Fry does a lovely take-down of the snobbery of language purists. I'm embedding the video; personally I listened to just the audio and worked on other mindless things, rather than watch the text moving all around. Definitely worth a listen, though.
no subject
I ordered new pants for work, I'd gained a little weight, so I went up a size, from a '14' to a '16'. When they came, they were smaller than the pants they were ordered to replace. The whole 'sizing' thing makes no sense anymore.
no subject
I always encounter the opposite problem. I'm fairly slender (for an American woman) and really flat-chested, but I haven't gotten smaller over the years... and there are several stores that don't carry shirts that fit me anymore, including JC Penney's and Kohls. At least not in the misses section, and I refuse to shop in the juniors department. THAT'S WHERE MY STUDENTS SHOP. Ugh.
And my jeans size in most brands has gone down two sizes since college, even though my waist is two inches larger than it was at the time.
The lack of consistency in clothing sizes is laughable, except for how it makes me want to cry sometimes.