#vanity sizing

[healthreality]

Chart shows shocking change in clothing sizes

You won’t believe how much women’s clothing sizes have changed over the past 50 years.

[shaftking]

People really out here gaslighting over vanity sizing. An XS now is basically an M from ten years ago, just because the fashion industry boiled the frog on it doesn’t mean that people in smaller sizes don’t get to complain that their normal sized bodies are basically impossible to shop for because not only are standard sizes larger, but so-called “extended sizes” only go one way. Plenty of brands will carry up to a 5XL but only as far down as an XS that isn’t even a true XS.

[smarbles]

I just bought some pants from American Eagle, and like a fool, didn’t try them on before purchasing, bc the tag had both a size (00) and waist measurement (24”). So I had hope that the 24” label meant the pants had a 24” waist.

NOPE! Those supposedly high waisted pants sit right around where early 2000s low rise jeans sat! Because that 24” label, in fact, didn’t mean shit! I measured the pants myself and they have a 29” waist! Because numbers? Easily verifiable measurements? They mean nothing if you are a womens cloths designer! Vibes for all sizing! Make shopping for clothing absolutely miserable!

And yes, I can and will tailor these pants to actually fit but god damn, I wish I could just read a label with numbers that have an actual bearing on the reality of the clothes they are attached to, instead of jumping through hoops every time I try to get a new pair of pants

[cryoverkiltmilk]

Wearing all kinds of clothes as an enby: ethereal, enriching, uplifting, beautiful, adorable, delightful, i garb myself in the finery that reflects my true self, all shall adore me

Shopping for other clothes as an enby: i am a formless horror, how dare I expose the world to myself, these fine things are not meant for me, what even are numbers, sizes are an eldritch language

[whatbigotspost]

cw fatphobia / capitalism || I just remembered a post about how the size of clothes didn't rly change, just the number attached to it and wondered: Is it everywhere around the world that more is charged for clothing when the number is above a certain point? It is where I live (Not any of the Americas), which gives reason to think that this is the other reason aside from diet culture why clothes get their size-number reassigned, yes?

I can't speak to this topic w/ a ton of authority, but I can definitely agree there are soooooo many ways that capitalism and fatphobia interact when it comes to clothing sizing, prices, and discrimination. Oh also, capitalism X fatphobia X sexism specifically too, because a lot of clothes intended for men will use measurements as a size (ex "36 inch waist") while clothes intended for women have an arbitrary number attached (ex "size 10.") Here are just a couple of examples I know off the top of my head: 1. "Vanity sizing" --also called "size inflation" this is where certain retailers have increased their sizes over recent years. The idea is that when you go shop there, if you can assume that the average customer is very invested "the thin ideal" mindset and carry inherent fatphobia within them, they'll get excited when the jeans they buy from the vanity sized retailer is a smaller number than other stores. For example, someone may usually wear a size 12 but at this store they're a size 8, so it makes them happy and they feel like they're a better person for the lower number. So basically, the experience cheats a little to leverage the customer bases' inherent fatphobia to gain and retain more customers and maximize profits. Retailers like Gap, Loft, and Old Navy are the ones I usually hear accused of this. 2. "Exclusivity sizing" --This is when a retailer engages in the opposite of vanity sizing...this describes brands that have made their space in the market by being specifically known for being ONLY available to people in a very limited, small size range. These type of retailers happily give a big "FUCK YOU" to the entire concept of plus sized clothes or an inclusive approach to their customer base. They are looking to repel fat people and attract people who enjoy not being aligned w/ fatness. They can take two approaches I've seen. The first is where their sizes are actually smaller than other places (I often think of Hollister or American Apparel). The second is where the size range is so narrow that it IS the store's brand. Their whole business model hinges on exclusivity, like the old 5/7/9 stores that most folks who remember mall life in the 90s will well recall w/ me.

For these retailers, their customer base gains loyalty and profits are extracted from them by association with being able to fit into the clothes where again, thinness is positioned as BEST. Whether the customers are consciously aware or not, they are buying into an exclusive club of thinness when they shop at these places. I kinda made up the "exclusivity sizing" term/label here, but identifying this concept is not mine.

3. "Size inclusion"--These are retailers who are turning all of this on its head and offering as wide of a size experience as possible. Many of them, like Yitty and Universal Standard, also throw out traditional sizing schemes and invent their own, where a larger body is considered the "normal" one for their customer base. In my assessment, this one is the newest iteration in how clothing retailers gain profits by tinkering w/ size because I can't recall it EVER happening before the past 5-10 years, but I could be wrong. Of course, this approach is also the least fatphobic, but it's not any less capitalistic in nature. Their goal is to still project a brand that makes money off of the market. They're just betting that in 2022, their size inclusive approach will appeal to a certain target demographic who cares about this topic and wants to spend their money with likeminded companies. (Which on that note, if a thin person wants to act as an ally to fat folks on the topic of clothing size access, one quick thing they can do is immediately start buying clothes ONLY from a company that is size inclusive. It'll not only put your $ toward a source that fat people can also access to help sustain it; it'll also real quickly teach you a lesson as an ally about how hard it is to find quality items in like a size 30. And YES the companies that offer clothes in those sizes are often quite expensive.) Anyhoo, I probably didn't answer your question, but there's a wordy reply on what this all brings to mind for me. It's super fascinating but also extremely frustrating to behold.

[professorpski]

What Size Am I?

Garment sizing drove Ruth O'Brien crazy. She was the head of the Clothing and Textiles division in the Bureau of Home Economics in the 20th Century and a textile chemist who liked rational systems. She organized large-scale studies measuring Americans in order to create a system of sizing based on the sizes that people actually came in. But it was all for naught. People did not want accurate sizing. Women wanted sizing that told them that their children were tall for their age and that told them that they were smaller around than they actually were. And manufacturers were perfectly willing to humor them. Which is why sizes mean almost nothing today. Unless you are a man and can go by inches. Even so, "comfort fit" and elasticized waistbands mean some men are being humored about their actual waistline measurements. 

Here I give you the absurdity of two boatneck women's tops sold by two different garment companies.The turquoise is marked "Medium" while the bright pink is marked "Small." And somewhere Ruth O'Brien is spinning in her grave

[tired-aliensoul]

Ratty hair, bad skin, clogged ears, runny nose

At least the weather is gray and rainy

[lazy-cat-corner]

I dont care if the number on my pants say I’m a size bigger than a 4, I just want a universal sizing method so I don’t have to keep repurchasing and guessing what size jeans I need because the size charts online lie. I won’t lose sleep over not being sample size.

I just want to breathe in my pants!