The female feelgood factor

Economist ^ | 09/25/03 | Correspondent

[P.O.E.]

Shocking news: a market that is rejecting standardisation

We live, it is said, in a world of standardisation: a place in which increasingly you can buy the same things—cappuccinos, food, cosmetics, fashions—in similar shops, in similar malls, in similar cities. The heart laments this and hopes it isn't really happening. The head, though, has to accept that it has advantages, for standardised products save time, reduce confusion, and may be cheaper and more predictable, especially when attached to a trusted brand. There is one market, however, in which hearts and heads alike are forcing things in a different direction: women's clothing. There, the customer is queen, and she seems to prefer confusion.

It is not the fashions themselves that are flouting standardisation. It is the sizes in which they are sold. Once upon a time these were predictable and numerological, even if the numbers used varied from country to country. It did not matter if a size 12 dress in Britain was called a 38 in Germany and a 44 in Italy, for a simple conversion chart would suffice. No longer. Increasingly, size is a matter of vanity not of measurement, for women have, well, become larger in various ways (see article). Not surprisingly, they would like to have their cake, eat it, and stay exactly the same dress size. Some clothing firms have accommodated such delusional desires by sticking to the same sizing numbers but making the clothes larger. Others have resorted to therapeutic words—petite, regular, “missy”. In America, it is even possible to buy women's clothes in size 0; presumably negative sizing cannot be far behind.

Men are, of course, going through the same dimensional change. They are not, however, encountering, or inviting, the same confusion. Occasionally it may be hard to work out what exactly is meant by “medium” or “extra large”, but mainly real measurements still rule. This may be because men have another option: for suit-wearers the best trick is to buy not the right new size but a size too big, for then the suit looks loose and people may be fooled into thinking you are getting slimmer, not fatter. Or perhaps their vanity is of a more primitive sort. A (possibly apocryphal) story about Winston Churchill has the great man recommending that among aid shipments sent during the second world war should be packages of British condoms, all large size but labelled “small”.

But for women, meanwhile, shopping is becoming harder: more things must be tried on, taking more time, and buying online is a poor option. Central planners, ignoring the fact that this is the result of expressed female preferences, would want standardisation reimposed. Here's an alternative suggestion for our freer era: clothing firms could agree a standard sizing to be put on some sort of bar code or tag. Then those who want speed and clarity could buy (or be given) an electronic reader to find out the easily comparable truth. Those who would rather fool themselves can continue to do so by reading the written labels. Such are the workings of invisible hands.

[P.O.E.]

I'm not going near this one. I'm going into the other room to watch football.

[xsmommy]

chicken! what are ya, YELLA? ; )

[Mears]

Are you sure Churchill didn't mean all small size but labeled "large"?

[xsmommy]

who were they sending the aid too? He wanted other countries to think that Brits were such HE-men that a small was swimming on the foreigners!

boy is that a ludicrous thought, since Brits to me seem for the most part, fruitier than all get out!

[Lizavetta]

Victoria's Secret has already done this. If you are a size 8 or 10, that's considered 'small'.

[P.O.E.]

I may be dumb, but I'm not Stupid :}

[Cicero]

Since I can't understand it, it must be economics.

[najida]

I can go in shops and wear anything from an 8 to a 14.

My favorite dress in the world is a size 4 (mislabled, I am sure, but I don't care)

[dixiechick2000]

"I'm not going near this one. I'm going into the other room to watch football"

That having been said, I take issue with this.

"Others have resorted to therapeutic words—petite, regular, “missy”."

These are not "therapeutic words". They are different cuts, for different body types.

[xsmommy]

Missy is a stupid word and always was, though. ya gotta admit!

[najida]

Petite makes sense, (ie,short)
but Missy?

I agree, dumb name.

[dixiechick2000]

Yep...I'll admit that. lol

[kitkat]

***"Others have resorted to therapeutic words—petite, regular, “missy”."***

***These are not "therapeutic words". They are different cuts, for different body types.***

You are absolutely right. Petite is cut shorter . Misses size is for slender hips. Regular is for...well...regular as the factories see it.

Strangely, even tho I take a misses size, I have a whole bunch of petite-sized blouses and sweaters which fit me just fine since the length from the neck to the waist isn't an issue.

[tiamat]

xsmommy wrote:

Missy is a stupid word and always was, though. ya gotta admit!

**************************************

LOL!

I think I'd clobber any guy who called me "Missy" !

Tia

[lodwick]

Very solid thinking there...

[ishabibble]

A fool and her money are soon parted...

[kaylar]

It is not "Therapeutic" to be unable to buy new clothes AT ALL because the smallest sizes fit like tents. It sucks! I ordered a pretty size 4 skirt, and I can take it on and off without unbuttoning and unzipping it. OTOH, I just bought a vintage black velvet floor length skirt that is so tight I can barely fasten it-it's from the 1970s and it's a size NINE!!!! I am going to have to have a lot of newer garments altered so they fit, and that costs money. For those of us who haven't gotten larger through the years, the incredible expanding sizes* are no joy, they are a real problem and an extra expense. Thank God shoe sizes are still more or less unchanged.

*and shrinking inseams. In HS (circa mid 1980s) petite length slacks were often too long on me, sometimes being as long as 34 (or 2-3" longer than talls are today). Today, without growing one inch taller than I was in HS, I've gone from a petite size 6-8 to a tall 0-2 (when I can find that size). This sort of nonsense may fool all the under 5'5" women who're convinced that their legs "are long in proportion to my torso length", but it simply irritates those of us who know the manufacturers are playing dumb games.

[DeFault User]

If you want to be small, hang around with large women:

[SamAdams76]

Getting clothes used to be easy for me: Just get 3XL shirts and 52 trousers at the Big (Fat) and Tall man shop. Now life has gotten more complicated since I lost some weight. Now I must try everything on before I buy it because waist size "36" appears to have a tolerance of +/- six inches! And "medium" shirts can range from fitting me loosely to barely fitting my 12-year-old son. I feel like a damn woman when I have to search for the dressing room. I just want to get my stuff and get the hell out of there. Anyway, I'm glad I don't go to Big & Tall men's shop anymore but it was much easier in there - especially since most everything had elastic bands and you could s-t-r-e-t-c-h into the next higher size.

[MotleyGirl70]

LOL!