Womens’ clothing seems to be sized by a near-arbitrary system of meaningless numbers that retailers might even deliberately manipulate to confuse their customers. Mens’ clothing, even the cheap stuff I buy, is sized by standardized measurements given in inches (I suspect they use centimeters outside the US). This is one of the few undeniable advantages of being a man in the western world and I think it’s great.
Tell me, then, if a mainstream retailer decided to strike a blow for rationality and gender equality by selling womens’ clothes the same way as mens’ would you regard it as a selling point? They might have to make adjustments to the system, like adding a few extra measurements to accommodate the more pronounced morphological variabilities amongst women, but if it was on the up and up, would you be a customer?
Of course they would.
Just not the right size.
:::d&r:::
Yes, yes, hell yes, Og yes, they’d get most of my damned business unless their clothes were horrible and/or poorly made. I would love to be able to buy my clothes according to measurements, so long as a) the measurements were consistent and b) the company provided a measuring guide for what they were measuring (because not everybody takes the same measurements in the same places, which boggles my mind).
How would that work for things like dresses or tops, though?
I think it would be damn near impossible to standardize. Something that fit my waist perfectly would never make it over my hips, for example, so finding something that fit me in waist, hip, and inseam just wouldn’t happen.
Well, offhand, I don’t know my own measurements in inches, so I’d need to get measured in the store if I happened to wander by such a place in the mall. I’m pretty happy with my body, and probably wouldn’t mind having somebody else measure me, but I doubt that most women would be so comfortable. That said, yes, I’d love it if sizes were standardized like that!
Exactly, that would be part of the plan.
We already measure inseam and waist for men, so hip would be one of the extra measurements added to accommodate women.
Ah, but the great part about standardization is you can do the measuring at home. Also the difficult parts, like neck size and arm length don’t change that much in adults. I have been measured by a professional once, when I was buying a suit, and really I only needed it for the shirt. Even if someone is uncomfortable about measurements, they could just try on the same thing in a bunch of sizes until they found one that fit. Then they could just remember the numbers and use them for everything they buy. Like with shoe sizes. Or are shoe companies obfuscating as well?
Semi-off topic, but I believe I recall reading that Spain had made it mandatory for all clothes sold in Spain to have and use standardizes measurements.
Hell yes I would. I know Ruehl already offers jeans for women with the waist/inseam combo as the only sizing offered, and you try on different styles to see if they fit your rear, etc.
I have a 34" inseam and most women’s pants/jeans come in a size much shorter - typically 32" or 32.5". I hate having to order the long size online if they don’t carry it in the store - assuming they offer one at all. I can’t imagine what men would think if they were faced with only one inseam length when buying slacks or jeans, so why do we women put up with it? (I’m bitter. I looked like I was wearing “high water” pants for far too many years.)
I know many of my other measurements too. I knit, and better sweater patterns typically size by bust measurement (which isn’t the bra size) and may offer opportunities for alterations in other measurements as well.
Yes. I know my measurements and I carry a measuring tape when I shop to save time with trying stuff on. If the manufacturer would save me the trouble (and could be relied on to stay consistent), I’d appreciate it. I would still try clothes on before buying them.
I have to say, I’ve never once tried on a shirt, and thought that I might like it if only the neck were sized differently. Women don’t usually wear ties, and generally, you look uptight and prissy if you actually button the top button on a women’s dress shirt.
I don’t think women’s clothing varies much for arm length; at most, I think everything comes in petite, regular, and tall, with three different arm lengths. I’d love it if it weren’t so - I apparently have relatively short arms, and all long-sleeved tops reach at least to my knuckles.
I’m confused (and ignorant). How does the present system handle this? And how would giving waist, hips, and inseam in inches be worse?
Answer: Not that well.
Let’s use jeans as an example. Many average-priced stores offer jeans in only one inseam length, typically around 32". You’re SOL if you don’t fit that mold. Waist is based around the manufacturer’s preference, so you may be (say) a 10 in one brand and a 12 in another. Do your hips/butt fit? Well, you have to try it on. A description on the tag about where something is more “full” or “curvy” might help you figure out which is more likely to fit big hips or a rounded booty.
Some stores stick to the usual numbering system but offer different leg lengths. These are usually described as “short/regular/long.” I’ve seen the Gap call these “ankle/regular/long”, with “ankle” meaning above the ankle if worn by the “regular” wearer.
If you’re lucky, a store might provide measurement info… on their website. Hopefully this link to Gap’s women sizing works - I had to do a lot of clicking to find it. That doesn’t mean that another store owned by the same owning company will have similar sizing - Old Navy is owned by the same company as Gap, but their women’s inseams are supposedly 31/33/35" on pants and for jeans they might be 30/32/34" or 29/31/33" or 31/33/35" depending on which style you buy! Meanwhile Gap just claims to have 29/32/34" (and 36" for a mysterious Tall size) for all Women’s bottoms.
(Old Navy sizing here, the women’s sizes won’t open into a new tab, just as a popup.)
It sucks. I hate clothes shopping, and I welcome the thought of measurements - as long as they’re accurate. But I suspect many women would hate the thought out of vanity reasons rather than any other concerns.
It don’t know if it would work for me.
Unless they had a lot of really customized cuts for pants. My waist size and my hip size are quite disparate. Only having a waist size would give me sweet fuckall as far as the info I need. Not to mention that every different brand/cut of pants has a waist that sits in a slightly different place …
Of course, the sizes as they are now aren’t useful either.
What I really need is a personal tailor.
Even in mens, which does use the inches system it doesn’t really work. I wear anything from a 30 to a 34 in pants depending on brand and style. A 30 inseam in one brand may fit well where a 30 inseam in another is dragging the ground. I still have to try everything on to make sure when it says 32 that it will actually fit me comfortably.
Amen to this.
On the Old Navy size chart, the size I usually buy for jeans is and inch an a half larger in the waist than the same size on the Banana Republic size chart.
I’ve been telling my friends that Old Navy’s sizes run bigger than normal for a long time, I finally have proof!
To the OP: I would LOVE to buy clothes by inches. That would be fantastic. I already did a rant about vanity sizing in another thread today and how much I hate it. I’d like to know what size I wear no matter where I shop.
YES!! I’m blessed (cursed) with a small waist, average hips, and looooooong legs. A 34" inseam will be just long enough when I first buy jeans, but Og forbid should they shrink at all, or it’s wadin’ time. For this reason, I tend to wear my jeans (the ones that fit properly) until they literally fall apart, since replacing them is such a hassle.
Nope. I’ve NEVER had a problem with traditional clothes not fitting right. Seriously. Waist/hips/ass all in their proportions, no matter what size I am (and it’s fluctuated over the years).
And, from what I hear tell from guys. . .doesn’t matter if you’re using inches. There’s STILL variation. So it wouldn’t necessarily get rid of the “I’m X here and Y here” issue.
True, but I feel it’s less. Odds are, I can wear any brand’s 32x32. If I am in doubt, I’ll get a 34x32. A 32 inseam is generally a bit longer than what I should wear (probably a 31,) but I like a little bit of bagginess. Not “gangsta style,” to be sure, just enough that I don’t feel like my wang is getting strangled. Most 32 waists will fit me, but sometimes it’s snug, so if I don’t know the brand, I know a 34 will fit, and that’s why God made belts.
Oy, I’m the opposite but totally feel your pain: tiny waist, large-for-my-height hips, and damn stubby legs. I mean 27" inseam legs*. What I really want is an affordable made-to-measure option, but at least inch measures in a store would eliminate a lot of the guesswork.
Also, that would give me more hope about buying pants outside of the little girl’s department - you know, in parts of stores meant for people who’ve already gone through puberty.