So, this is part 1 of 2. Which means we did this an hour ago. So my memory is a little fuzzy on what this was about. But I know that Tony told one of his patented “best jokes in the world,” and then we did an expose’ on the seedy underbelly of women’s clothing design. Enjoy!
QUESTIONS:
*indicates a question was abridged
So, women’s clothing sizing. Sexist, manipulative, insane, or some combination there of? –Azuretalon
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
I know a bit about pockets from seeing info about them at the Victoria and Albert museum. Before about the 17th century, no one had pockets. If you needed to carry something with you that was small, you probably wore a small bag hanging from your belt. Pockets developed in men’s clothing along with the Enlightenment. I don’t know if this has something to do with the Enlightenment’s whole heightened value on privacy but it seems likely. The fact that it’s divided by gender I would definitely see connected to the Enlightenment as the idea of universal equality seemed to require countervailing ideas of difference, both for race and sex. Women did figure out a kind of pocket substitute though, and sewed belts with flat pouches on two sides which they wore under their dresses. At first, these were really difficult to access, but then someone figured out to put slits in the dresses.
Then in the 18th century the whole look for women’s clothing slimmed down and it was difficult to wear these things under your clothes without them showing. (Why they had to not show I don’t know, unless, again, it has to do with privacy.) So that’s when the purse developed, and after the purse came into being, women didn’t return to those belt pockets when clothing became full again in the 19th century.
Women started putting pockets into their clothing at the end of the 19th century (interestingly timed with the suffrage movement), and then began wearing pants in the early part of the 20th, and now some women have returned to wearing those belt pockets as well, but this time on the outside of their clothes.
https://goo.gl/images/ycnvzp
Oh, the picture is of one of the belt pocket thing-a-mah-jigs.
Don’t know a lot about the history of women’s sizing, but this article from Time was interesting. As you could probably predict, sizing started with catalogue sales. The size zero thing comes from resizing over and over such that what used to be a “12” in the 1950s is now a “6”–and that comes from selling women the idea that they are supposed to be small.
The whole difficulty in sizing means that women have to spend a lot more time in dressing rooms (playing into the stereotype that women love shopping for clothes and men just shop in an “in and get out” way). And that, plus the poor quality of women’s clothes, is designed, I think, to make women spend more money on clothes, besides the fact that they are more expensive in the first place. A lot of that has to do with the fact that women were the ones who were targeted as the consumer at the end of the 19th century (because of the gender division in which women were supposed to take care of the domestic sphere which included buying things for the home). Nowadays it also goes along with the fact that many things for women are more expensive. Dry cleaning the same item of clothing (a dress shirt), for instance, costs women more than men.
http://time.com/3532014/women-clothing-sizes-history/
It’s been statistically shown that many items for women cost more – haircuts, dry cleaning, clothes, shampoo, etc. Yet women are still making less than men which makes it even harder for a woman to cover expenses than a man.
Shopping is exhausting and I prefer to avoid it most of the time, but it is usually good to try on clothes in person to see if they fit rather than order a bunch, try them on at home and go to the hassle of returning them. When you find a style/brand that works for you, it’s awesome that you can get the right size and fit delivered right to your door. Otherwise, it’s a guessing game.
Also, Tony and William, depending where you shop, you can get not only size 0, but also 00 and 000 – which are all different sizes!
Tangentially: One of my favourite Dickens characters is named Herbert Pockets. 🙂
Do you think the “1984” in the “Wonder Woman, 1984” title is a deliberate allusion?
I do tend to think so. Time will tell! 🙂
The whole thing started with my wife having lost a lot of weight telling me she went from one size down to another, and me not understanding what that meant but assuming that it had to be based in some metric. I went down that road of research for awhile and was appalled to learn basically it meams nothing even between different brands and some brands purposely change the numbers so women feel smaller in a lower number that is the same circumference in inches. The whole things offends me terribly because it’s, of course, sexist but metrics that don’t mean anything then aren’t metrics. They might as well be size red, orange, and avocado!
Tony – women’s clothing for larger women are most often called “Woman” the “regular” sizes are referred to as “Misses” or “Missy,” and short people are “petite.” If you are skinny but tall, you’re probably in misses.
Tony, you’ve seen my general shape (though I’ve lost some weight since then) my shoulders and hips are the same. I think of myself as a medium sized woman, maybe even a large because I’m taller than average, yet, I’ve been baffled that I often buy XS in fitted clothing. There ARE women smaller than me – what do they buy?
I read Jas’ article that mentioned the often quoted “Marilyn Monroe was a size 12” which I’ve always interpreted as people saying “it’s ok to be bigger, you’re beautiful, just like Marilyn Monroe.” Sometimes even implying that she was on the verge of being plus sized! The kicker is that in the article, they point out that in current sizes, Marilyn would be a 6. When updated in that way, it’s no longer a consolation, and actually feels more damming of women of all sizes today. You, thinner person, only feel skinny because the sizes have been adjusted. You, size 12, you thought you were rocking the same size curves as the iconic Marilyn, but you’re really not anywhere close. No one wins.
Odd numbered sizes are Juniors clothes intended for teens. Adult women should be wearing even numbered sizes. I think this distinction is based on the developing body vs the developed woman’s body, although we all know that women of all ages come in all shapes and sizes (unlike clothes themselves).
Gap has some jeans that are described by the waist measurement. Women’s jeans should really be by waist, hips and inseam, but this is still a big step toward making sense. Un/Fortunately, they also indicate what numerical size they think the waist measurement correlates to, as though they’re really not committed to this waist measurement thing. This does let you know what size to get your khakis or dress pants which is useful. I also like that Gap sells most of their pants in 3 lengths, I think they are ankle, regular, and tall. I don’t know why they can’t just call the shortest one short; short people know they’re short right? Or could list by the actual inseam number, but that’s all but a novelty in female clothing (I think Land’s End and LL Bean list the inseam sizes in the catalog). On their website, Gap will also often say “model is 5’7″ and is wearing a size S” which is a step toward having a clue what size you might need, but height is only one piece of the equation, and especially in tops, height is pretty much the least important dimension. But still, thanks Gap for making some effort.
(also interesting – maternity clothing is sold based on your pre-maternity size. Not how big your bump is or how far along in the pregnancy you are.)
I don’t really like carrying or keeping track of a purse. If I can reasonably get by without it, I usually don’t. Sometimes this involves giving my ID and/or metro card to my husband to carry. We went downtown for fireworks for the 4th and all I brought was my metro card – and due to my lack of pockets, he graciously carried it except when I needed to use it. There was a slight fear that we’d get separated because of the crowds and because I didn’t have phone, money, cards or keys, I’d have no way to get home other than walking 4 miles. Fortunately, we stuck together and made it home without any trouble, but when we do that, I AM very dependent on him.
I’m definitely not caught up and have slipped a fair bit behind again. 🙁
Ninja to Grain of Sand: You hit them with really high heat to melt them. *mic drop*
William’s Super Friends movie: I’d watch that.
Women’s clothing sizes and pockets: Yup, that’s just nuts.