Friday, July 10, 2009

Subtle, Michelle

Michelle Cottle:
It has not escaped my attention that, despite my staying approximately the same size and shape since high school, the clothes in my closet have dropped a couple of number sizes over the years.

And after what, two kids?


Sarah Cannon said...

It's true though. Alternative hypothesis, buying more expensive clothes. I'm smaller when I buy from Gap than Kohl's. And even smaller when I get Anne Taylor.

(I'm not creating an account just to comment on her post. Sorry, you get to hear it instead.)

chingona said...

It is true. I've dropped two sizes over the last 10 years, despite staying the same weight, give or take two or three pounds in either direction.

Matthew C said...

I so don't get the logic behind women's clothing sizes. What's with the arbitrary evaluations - who's a ten, who's a four, etc. When I buy pants the numbers I'm looking at are the actual length of my waist and legs, in inches. Aside from being less emotionally taxing, the system adds the convenience of knowing which pants I can buy in any store I go to, whatever the cut and fit, no need to try them on (though I usually do anyway, because its fun).

chingona said...


There is no logic to it. It's completely arbitrary, and I and many women I know have frequently longed for sizes that reflect actual measurements. But there is so much more moralizing around women's sizes that I think the assumption is women don't want to buy clothing that says right on it what your waist measurement is.

And in defense of women's clothing makers (words I never thought I'd type), there is more variation both in women's bodies and the cuts of women's clothing when compared to men's that would make it hard to just do a straight up measurement. Someone with the same waist and inseam measurement might not be able to wear the same pants I do because our butts/hips/thighs are differently shaped.

Dresses are particularly complicated because plenty of women are big on top but don't have big hips or vice versa.