Posted on 09/27/2003 11:48:42 AM PDT by 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.
Isn't that the truth! I recently gave up on finding a skirt or dress slacks because after trying on everything at the low end of the size rack, they still fell off of me. I don't think of myself as all that tiny, but I guess the world got large around me.
I have the same problem in finding clothes for our 10 year old son. He's on the tall side, and very slim, especially in the hips. Even slim cut jeans don't always fit him. There are lots of generously-cut clothes for chunky kids, but not much for slender ones. It really eats up a lot of time when you can't rely on the labels to be even close to the expected size. Like many boys his age, he really doesn't like to shop either, so it can be quite difficult.
Yeah, but they cost extra.
One of the best lines on clothes I ever heard was from Barbara Bush. She was asked what she and Nancy Reagan had in common. She replied, "Nancy Reagan is a size 4 {pause}. My left leg is a size 4."
My college room mate worked as a buyer in retail in DC and they definitely referred to it as MISSY. that is why i think it sounds queer! the ONLY usage should be when saying "as for YOU, missy..." ; )
I've found that, while I wear petite blouses better, I can wear a misses blouse. But, if the blouse is fitted, I can't wear a misses blouse at all because they are too long waisted for me.
Some of us don't want to wear the same styles that Britney wears, either.
Being petite, and of a certain age, I refuse to wear low-rise jeans and skin tight mid-drift tops.
I did that in the '70s...;o)
It's the nectar of the Gods.
Please, pass the cake. ;o)
Can't hold a candle to Patti Ann Yum-Yum on Fox. (^ ;
Nam Vet
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.