They're literally conspiring against you
-
As a guy I feel this for shirts specifically, sometimes I have to wear an XL sometimes it's a L and once in a blue moon I can wear a M. Why you may ask? Because for some fucking reason damned near every shirt assumes medium means 5'7 twink with a shoulder width smaller than my chest width, I'm 5'5 barrel chested and with wide shoulders where sometimes I can't wear a shirt cause I am forced to A pose by the shoulders. Also I can sometimes rip medium sized shirts assunder if I flex my back right.
damned near every shirt assumes medium means 5’7 twink with a shoulder width smaller than my chest width
I'm 6'0" and muscular with broad shoulders and most of my shirts are M. None of this sizing stuff makes any sense.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No one's mentioned bras and how they are significantly worse? Lets make arbitrary cup and band sizes, but then add in how each bra has a different shape and projection even in the same brand. Are you full on top, full on bottom, average, shallow? What about root width and height? Well you won't know if any bra will fit until you try, even changing cup and band sizes won't make a bra not made for your shape fit properly. Each brand does their own different sizing even in each bra, each global country has their own sizing system, and it is madness.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This is one of many reasons I don't buy textbook economics of capitalism.
For example, if they'd just put lots of pockets in women's clothing decades ago as standard, they'd have sold SOOOO much.
This idea that capitalism and the free hand of the market will gravitate towards bulk of demand is bullshit.
-
Men's pants too. And at the same store, by the EXACT SAME maker.
I have 34's, 36's and 38's in different colours and materials. They all fit comfortably, and if i get different sizes in those particular styles, they're either too big or too small.
Make it make sense, please.
One relevant fact about men's pants is that the W (waist) size dates from the 1930s and 1940s when men wore high-waisted pants. The actual waist measurement was always about 3" smaller than the circumference around the hips; as the waistline of men's pants migrated downwards to where it is today, manufacturers kept the nominal W measurement of how big the waistline would have been if it had still been higher. I generally wear pants with a 33W but the actual circumference around the belt line is always around 36". It's not vanity sizing so much as anachronistic sizing.
There was a comedian a few decades ago who had a routine about how the aging process in men means your pants start migrating up towards your neck, but in reality it was just old men continuing to wear the kind of pants they had gotten used to as young men. It's a common phenomenon - I work with a bunch of women in their late 50s and early 60s and they all still have feathered haircuts like women did in the late 1970s and 1980s.
-
Yes, that’s exactly what it is.
Which brand has good quality control?
Not Levi's lol.
-
This isn't just a problem with women's jeans which have arbitrary size numbers. Even men's jeans which are size by the actual waist and inseam measurement can be wrong. In addition to vanity sizing, cheaper jeans are also made from larger material cuts out of the patterns at the same time to save manufacturing cost sometimes twice as many as shown here:
Those at the top or bottom of the stack may end up a bit smaller or a bit larger than the pattern, but they all get marked with the same size.
Whether it was this manufacturing problem or vanity sizing, this is why I stopped buying Old Navy jeans. I could pick out 3 jeans all labeled with the same size and one would fit okay, one would be too small, and one too large. I have never had this problem with Eddie Bauer jeans.
Edit: I found picture showing the larger stacks (which can introduce the mismatched sizing) I was referring to:
Even men’s jeans which are size by the actual waist and inseam measurement can be wrong.
They're not generally sized by the actual waist measurement. I wear 33W and my pants all measure about 36" around the belt line. The "waist" measurement derives from many decades ago when men wore high-waisted pants where the waist was a few inches smaller than the circumference around the hips, where waistlines are today. Men were also generally a lot fitter back then, too!
-
Forces women to go to store to try on, stay there longer to find a good fit. Ensure makeup, perfumes, bags/accessories, and jewelry are always in eyeshot of the women's clothing racks and along the entry/exit paths.
It's not woman-exclusive and also the companies deciding the sizing are not the same as the companies running department stores (for large clothing brands these days, online shopping in their own store would be optimal, since retailers take a large cut).
It's mainly that making sure sizes are actually the same costs more money than just going with whatever comes out, and it's hard to make purchasing decisions based on size consistency once a large amount of brands do this.
-
This is one of many reasons I don't buy textbook economics of capitalism.
For example, if they'd just put lots of pockets in women's clothing decades ago as standard, they'd have sold SOOOO much.
This idea that capitalism and the free hand of the market will gravitate towards bulk of demand is bullshit.
I read a thing (not sure if it's true) that the reason there's no pockets in women's clothing is that women have more diverse body shapes than men. Pockets are designed not to interrupt the lines of the garment where possible - it's more straightforward to place men's pockets because they're going to be in a more predictable place when worn Vs women where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I don't wear women's clothes, but I do feel like shirt sizes are some sort of scam. I want a long shirt, yet the L and the XL are the same length. Wtf. Or when an L is longer than an XL. Granted, maybe the size is horizontal rather than vertical. But c'mon.
That's why I propose a 2d size system. Size for height and for width. Also, sizes got to mean something. Not just feels, but concrete values within a range. Or make them numbers, idk.
-
For a mechanized process with no customization; the fucking lack of standards is really maddening.
What makes you think it's so mechanised? Material is often cut on bandsaw in stacks inches thick, they're sewn on machine, sure, but manually controlled by a human. Different designers, different factories, different QA levels.
-
I was in a clothing store last week that only started at L for mens clothing. Theres also a shoe store closeby that only sells mens shoes for 40 (EU) and above.
Like wtf, there are plenty of men that are smaller than 180cm and that have small feet. At least give me some options. These are the same stores that complain that everybody orders their shit online nowadays.
Yeah! Last time I go into a store called “Destination XL.”
(I’m joking, I saw the rest of your comments about this.)
-
That's funny, I'm over here wishing for men's clothes with less pockets
How dare you make such a dangerous wish.
There are plenty of men’s pants with just the front and rear pockets!
-
Yes, but men's clothes come with the other issues, too. I just started sewing my own pants because I couldn't find a pair that was in the right spot between good fit and style, affordability, quality and not being made under exploitive labour conditions.
and not being made under exploitive labour conditions.
It’s that last one that’ll get you.
-
No one's mentioned bras and how they are significantly worse? Lets make arbitrary cup and band sizes, but then add in how each bra has a different shape and projection even in the same brand. Are you full on top, full on bottom, average, shallow? What about root width and height? Well you won't know if any bra will fit until you try, even changing cup and band sizes won't make a bra not made for your shape fit properly. Each brand does their own different sizing even in each bra, each global country has their own sizing system, and it is madness.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Lemmy needs a community for A Bra That Fits. It's hard to express just how bad the bra-sizing problem is in the US. It goes far and beyond vanity sizing. I don't even bother with US sizes anymore. Not only do the sizes mean next-to-nothing, but most stores only carry up to about ~ 44 DDD. Which means that many people who require different sizes end up wearing what's available - even if it doesn't fit right. When I measure myself and plug it into a bra sizing calculator, I end up with something even specialty lingerie shops don't carry. But that's not a problem for Victoria's Secret or whatever - they'll attempt to push whatever they have in stock, even if its sizing makes no sense, because their end goal is to make a sale - not to actually help you.
I suspect the powers of capitalism (aided by the internet/shopping online) have convinced most stores not to carry sizes that aren't mainstream. Yes, this even applies to boutique shops that supposedly cater to larger sizes. They don't want to keep stock that isn't likely to move, which means tons of people like me end up getting completely shafted. I could spend hours researching places, making calls, traveling across the state to find these places, find the one or two bras in the entire building that actually fit me, just to end up with a material that makes me itch or has an ugly style that only a grandma would wear. (Sexy lingerie? For massive titties? LOL good luck finding that.) I've wasted days doing this, and it's only gotten worse since Covid (when many stores moved inventory out of physical buildings and made them exclusively available online. Which defeats the point of actually going to their stores at all.) My only real option is to bra shop online, using British sizes, and fucking pray that everything will work out all right.
On top of that, bras are expensive. Prices vary with sales and all, but I'd say about $50 is average for one. Add in the scarcity aspect and the varying quality levels (that I can't afford to be picky about), and I'm lucky to own 2-3 bras that fit at any given time. I have to hand-wash and thoroughly dry my bra most nights so I can wear it again the next day without risking a yeast infection. It absolutely sucks and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.
-
Straight sizes (xs - xxxl) vs Plus sizes (0x - 5x)
Designers create garments for one size (typically Large), and then scale it down and up for the other sizes, but above a certain threshold that doesn’t proportion correctly, so plus sizes are scaled from 2x.
The term “straight” here was originally opposed to curved.
Thank you
-
i know the author is only familiar with their own experiences and i don't expect them to know the other side but this is definitely not exclusive to women's clothes. every brand just uses their own sizes for everything from hats to pants to shoes.
Shoes are there worst. I need EE width. Some brands, the"Wide Fit" works. Others, "Extra Wide". And that doesn't even address how extremely difficult it is to even find wide shoes in-store nowadays.
-
What makes you think it's so mechanised? Material is often cut on bandsaw in stacks inches thick, they're sewn on machine, sure, but manually controlled by a human. Different designers, different factories, different QA levels.
Okay, thats fair, but it's way less fun to say 'corporatized and taylorized'
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
I suppose one of the many reasons why there are no consistent clothing sizes is because it's so difficult to agree on a way to measure things. What parts do you measure? The lower leg thickness? the upper leg thickness? the waist circumference? The leg's length? What if these numbers are all independent of each other and can't be reduced to a single number?
-
I read a thing (not sure if it's true) that the reason there's no pockets in women's clothing is that women have more diverse body shapes than men. Pockets are designed not to interrupt the lines of the garment where possible - it's more straightforward to place men's pockets because they're going to be in a more predictable place when worn Vs women where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly.
where it ends up making the clothes fit poorly
a.k.a makes the clothes fit anything but skin-tight because the pockets need space so the clothes have to be wider-cut
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's less extreme but men's clothing is like this too. I found a cut of jeans I liked in a store then ordered 4 mor pairs in different colors. None fit the same and 2 were unwearable.
