They're literally conspiring against you
-
This post did not contain any content.
I knew it! I'm not crazy!
-
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.
Length and width ought not be yoked like that, an XL shouldn't be longer, just wider. You need Short, Medium, and Tall and Extra Tall for that dimension.
I was a tall and skinny kid and the heartbreak of never having pants long enough, because the small ones were all also very short, still I feel it!
As an adult, the first time I saw a ladies size Small Tall in the shop I almost cried.
Women's bra sizes also suck, because the volume of the cups is tied to the diameter of the half circle the underwire describes, but small boobs aren't small in width, they just sit closer. Champagne glass, but small bras assume shot glass instead, basically. They need three measurements.
-
Not Levi's lol.
I just got some women's Levi's and holy crap it was hard to find the size. I'm about 38-31-41 in inches and 5'9" often jeans fit in a "29" sometimes 28, or 30.
I ordered the 29. Hips fit but waist measurement was 25", what the actual fuck? Who has a 24" waist and 41" hips? Is that even possible?
I ended up with a 31 but they really are too loose everywhere. So comfortable and were cheap so I kept them but WTF, Levi's?
-
Really? I've been buying the same size of trousers since I stopped growing. And I only went up one size for some upper body garments because I put on quite a bit of muscle.
I was buying pants the other day and I was a 34 in one brand and a 36 in another.
-
Tbh that's part of the reasons I want Levi's ones specifically, they have been very consistent with sizing in my experience
If it's becoming hard to find I'd better start fishing for a new pair straight away
-
I know this is a problem, as I see my wife deal with it frequently.
But understand that men's sizes aren't consistent either. I have a 32" waist...maybe. Some jeans and shorts fit me perfectly, some are way too tight, and some are way too loose. Even within the same brand and product. The jeans I have on today are pretty good for fit. A different pair of jeans I was wearing a few days ago required regular adjustments to keep from falling down. My weight hasn't varied THAT much.
The situation for men isn't as bad as women's sizes, though. I'd love to know how they think they can compress all of the different measurements a woman's body can have into a single number. At least they haven't tried that with men - for example, pants are waist and inseam length, so you can usually get what you need, or at least pretty close (notwithstanding the above issue). If they condensed that into one number, I have no idea how that would work.
Yeah as a trans woman it was bittersweet when my hips stopped fitting in men's jeans. They're sturdier with bigger pockets and way more (but not really) consistently sized.
The problem in men's sizes is tolerances in fabric cutting as they stack more and more sheets per cut. Women's clothes do that while also playing calvinball.
All this means rhat as a long legged skinny girl with thick thighs, biker's calves, and an ass I'd only trade while pant shopping, pant shopping is a long pain in the ass.
-
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.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that this is one instance that validates the textbook approach. In addition to the comment here, I had read several on the red site several years ago, one I remember from a buyer for a chain of outdoor gear stores, and another from the owner of a boutique clothing store. Both said that they tried to get women's clothing with real pockets, but eventually gave up because it just doesn't sell.
This topic came up in a group of my sailor friends on a boat last week, and ironically, all of the women's garments had good pockets, so they couldn't provide an example. But then, they were all wearing utilitarian clothing, rather than stylish. One friend had just bought new pants from REI; I've noticed for decades that if you want real pockets, shop at REI.
For what it's worth, stylish, form-fitting men's clothing also has tiny, or no pockets.
-
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.
Random memory unlocked: Back in high school, I had to borrow my girlfriend's jeans for some reason I don't remember. (We happened to wear the same size.) I do remember having SO MUCH room in the pockets, because I had narrower hips.
-
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.
Capitalism’s goal is profits. Not helping the customer, selling more, or anything else. We’re in late-stage capitalism, so it is ‘Profits Uber Alles’.
-
I know this is a problem, as I see my wife deal with it frequently.
But understand that men's sizes aren't consistent either. I have a 32" waist...maybe. Some jeans and shorts fit me perfectly, some are way too tight, and some are way too loose. Even within the same brand and product. The jeans I have on today are pretty good for fit. A different pair of jeans I was wearing a few days ago required regular adjustments to keep from falling down. My weight hasn't varied THAT much.
The situation for men isn't as bad as women's sizes, though. I'd love to know how they think they can compress all of the different measurements a woman's body can have into a single number. At least they haven't tried that with men - for example, pants are waist and inseam length, so you can usually get what you need, or at least pretty close (notwithstanding the above issue). If they condensed that into one number, I have no idea how that would work.
There's a slightly better balance with consistency for men's clothes because styles and patterns don't need to change as frequently.
That being said, it varies by brand and varies more when the brand is lower quality. Old Navy clothes might as well be sized "No way," "I dunno," "maybe, well, no," and "Woah, way too big." But something higher end like BR will be consistent with themselves on things like jeans that rarely change. All the people in some sweatshop in Bangladesh have the patterns down doing the same thing for years.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Same. The more-standardized sizes in men's clothing means I just have to resign myself to the fact that I need to buy size M, size L, or size XL depending on the brand, and that it still will never fit right. This is why the majority of my shirts are short-sleeved, even in winter.
I've recently met several men who got into sewing as a result.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Shoes. Bought a pair of Bass shoes from the Bass online store. The shoes that arrived were completely different from the ones I ordered. The picture on the shoebox were what I wanted, but not what was in the box. Explained the issue and returned the shoes. The replacement shoes were exactly the same. I returned and gave up.
-
Same. The more-standardized sizes in men's clothing means I just have to resign myself to the fact that I need to buy size M, size L, or size XL depending on the brand, and that it still will never fit right. This is why the majority of my shirts are short-sleeved, even in winter.
I've recently met several men who got into sewing as a result.
I am lucky that it is just a sowing thing for me and I don't mind wearing a shirt so long that it's more comparable to a classical kilt.
-
Length and width ought not be yoked like that, an XL shouldn't be longer, just wider. You need Short, Medium, and Tall and Extra Tall for that dimension.
I was a tall and skinny kid and the heartbreak of never having pants long enough, because the small ones were all also very short, still I feel it!
As an adult, the first time I saw a ladies size Small Tall in the shop I almost cried.
Women's bra sizes also suck, because the volume of the cups is tied to the diameter of the half circle the underwire describes, but small boobs aren't small in width, they just sit closer. Champagne glass, but small bras assume shot glass instead, basically. They need three measurements.
Women's bra sizes also suck
Shopping with my wife for bras is... Fun. Cups can be anywhere from a DDD to a I, bands from a 38 to a 46.
Somehow this makes sense somewhere.
She punched me when I sat a bra on my head and said 'try this one,' but I was right!
-
I just want to see more women's clothes with pockets.
I don't understand why women say this, then buy clothes without pockets (or without useful pockets).
-
If anyone is down for a fascinating video essay about this by a textile historian: Standardized Sizes Ruined our Clothing Quality
Have you ever wondered how we let clothing quality get so bad? It wasn't just desperation for cheaper options- the 18th century consumer would never have been willing to pay so much for such poor quality cloth. And yet, they stayed clothed. Even their cheaper options lasting years of hard wear. But they knew what quality looked like and for the most part, we don't.
When did we forget how to shop for good clothing rather than just trendy? What makes clothing "high quality" is so complex and nearly impossible to track with online shopping. Even in person, it's not a simple answer. But it used to be that more money meant more quality, plain and simple. Where did we mess up this system? Turns out, standardized sizing allowed (and even encouraged) far more than just issues with poor fit and body image.
My guess is that's more about fashion than not knowing how to buy good quality things.
In ye olde days, like the 1950s, jeans were jeans, and a pair that lasted years was great. Then in the 1980s trends started emerging like stone washed jeans, or acid washed jeans. Then there were the boot cut, tapered leg, loose cut, baggy, bell-bottom, and all kinds of other trendy cuts.
What's the point in buying a $200 pair of jeans that will last decades if they'll be out of fashion in 5 years?
High quality clothing is still out there, but it's not fashion clothing, it's work clothes. If you go to a store that caters to construction workers, factory workers, or other people who have to wear durable clothes as part of their job, you can still get stuff that lasts a very long time.
-
I don't understand why women say this, then buy clothes without pockets (or without useful pockets).
Because often the options are non existant
-
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.
The whole "cup size" thing is so weird. Even the name "cup" makes it sound like it's based on volume, but it's not. It's the difference between a measuring tape wrapped at boob height vs a measuring tape wrapped just below the boobs. This means that a 36A and a 28E might have the same volume of breast tissue but wildly different "cup sizes". It really seems like the whole thing would be a lot easier to manage if there were just a "breast volume" measurement and a "band length" measurement.
-
Okay, thats fair, but it's way less fun to say 'corporatized and taylorized'
Ha, my point was more that the bandsaw wasn't tracking straight so all the blanks on the bottom are bigger, the seamstress runs a hem 10mm (more or less) from the edge so the dimension remains out and the QA guy couldn't give a fuck because it's 8:30 on a Friday night and he's been working 21 days straight.
Even the same garment is going to have a different size in different countries, large in Italy, medium in UK etc etc. the real size is somewhere in between, but no one makes that level of granularity.
You should watch some of these garments being made, it's mind blowing.
Cutting blanks and this is a tame/slow process Vs some other factories I've seen on the tube.
-
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
That seems like an oversimplification, outside looking in for me, but there's no way a single dimension could ever adequately describe an item of clothing - my sister and wife have similar sized waists, but something tight round the posterior on my wife would be baggy on my sister.
