331–340 of 458 posts
the real insight here isn't that sizing is broken. Everyone knows that. It's that fixing it would require brands to admit their current customers don't match the label they've been selling them. "You're not a size 6, but size 10" is bad for business
Forget oil rig units. Clothes sizing is the true cursed unit system.
This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
part of it is just raw obesity increase, but part is also an aging population. even if women today WERE the same size as women of the same age 30 years ago, the average over the total population would still be up.
Mostly though it's the obesity increase. 40% of Americans are obese, and 75% are overweight. 30 years ago only 20% were obese.
I thought it would be worth looking at what the definitions are:
https://www.ergo-eg.com/uploads/books/devarajan_full_106_04%...
> Hourglass. A subject would fall into this shape category when there is a very small difference in the comparison of the circumferences of her bust and hips AND if the ratios of her bust-to-waist and hips-to-waist are about equal and significant (Simmons, 2002)
> Rectangle. A rectangular subject would have her bust and hip measure fairly equal AND her bust-to-waist and hip-to-waist ratios low. She would not possess a clearly discernible waistline (Simmons, 2002)
Over here (E.U) I'd say most women definitely would be "hourglass shaped" in some way more than any other shape - maybe some would be a tie with "rectangle" but I'm breaking the tie by saying it's fair to say hourglass does not mean wasp-waist either - so I couldn't reconcile my anecdotal observation from the stated facts until it dawned on me that this was U.S stats.
> One 2007 study found that half of women (49%) in the U.S. were considered rectangle-shaped. Only 12% of women had a true hourglass figure.
OK let's dig data:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/obesity_adult_07_08/obe...
> Results from the 2007–2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated 34.2% of U.S. adults aged 20 years and over are overweight, 33.8% are obese, and 5.7% are extremely obese.
And apparently it's worse for women (35.5% obese) than men (32% obese).
Anyway I'm not sure what "true hourglass" is supposed to even mean (wasp-waist?); according to the definition you got some waistline + balanced hip and shoulders => you're hourglass. If you start using "rectangle" as a fallback when in doubt then of course it's going to rate higher.
Funnily enough the very study linked is a comparison with another country (Korea):
https://www.emerald.com/ijcst/article-abstract/19/5/374/1249...
The of the only reasons I've been wearing the same pants is because I haven't found anything else that fits well
Why bother with a rational, descriptive, functional system when you can use vaguely aggressive and hostile terms that subtly impugn the buyer and allow incredibly deceptive and manipulative marketing? And hey, they don't really need pockets, anyway, right? edit: Really should have used the /s, I guess - women's clothing has some appalling aspects to it, one of which is notoriously tiny pockets, which is a source of f…
And despite all of that, women keep buying those products. I have difficulties believing that your observations are a real issue. If they were, rest assured the free market would have found out about it and would have offered the right product for those women. Reality is that most women buy based on looks and not practicality. I really had not heard before your comment any women complaining about small pockets.
I've had the exact opposite experience. I've heard this complaint many, many times, and for good reason because it really is laughable.
> Reality is that most women buy based on looks and not practicality.
Well, it's a tradeoff, isn't it? As a man, I also wear a (fake) leather jacket that has some fake pockets and I complain about them, because they're dumb and unnecessary. Still like the look of it, which is why I bought it, because it's not a -huge- issue.
To put it another way, why couldn't you have both? Why not have good-looking clothes that also have proper pockets? That's the really ridiculous part about it.
Also, there's a third variable you didn't factor in at all: Comfort. It's not enough to produce clothes that look good, they need to fit as well...which is exactly what the article is about.
So now you need to find clothes that are at least mostly comfortable, look at least okay to you and have proper pockets. And that is the point where you're really going to have a hard time in women's clothing and that's why a lot of the time, women will take the more comfortable, better-looking option. 2 out of 3 at least. But the fact remains that the pockets are completely idiotic.
This is a great use of data to make a compelling case that sizing sucks for women's clothing! I do wish it attempted to answer the question at the end, though: "Sizes are all made up anyway — why can’t we make them better?" Like, why doesn't the market solve for this? If the median woman can't buy clothing that fits in many brands, surely that's a huge marketing opportunity for any of the thousands of other clothing…