Having 3 sisters, a wife, and three daughters, I have heard the litany all too often that they have to shop at a store because there is no telling what you are going to get from a catalog.
The engineer in me wants to figure out if one could codify hips, bust, waist, and leg length to get a 4! set of combinations but I can't imagine any store that would buy 24 alternates in small, medium, large, and XL, that is 96 copies of the item just to sell one to someone. Not really economical. The thing that really bothers them though is when a supplier has reliably supplied the same size for several years and suddenly changes manufacturers or something and wham it doesn't fit.
It certainly suggests that roboticly made to order clothes would be a winner (Google could try that with their robotics companies) and one of the big obstructions, the sewing machine, is slowly succumbing to automation
It's not just women's clothes. For years, I bought jeans at gap because their sizes were true. Then 6 years ago some asshole decided to monkey with their sizing, and instead of being able to walk in and pick up jeans in the exact same size, I would have to try on a range each time. And it wasn't even consistent between different styles.
I now buy Tommy Bahamas and hope they don't get bit by the same stupidity.
Design aside, the consistency is so bad with Gap jeans that you could try on three pairs in the same "size" and they'll all fit differently. It's simply not possible any more to expect off the rack clothing to fit perfectly the way you think it should. You just have to try something on before you buy it.
A codified system based on measurements is enough; manufacturers don't need to make all combinations. The small, medium, large, 8, 10, 12, etc. system is meaningless, and seems to cause many people stress if they are self-conscious. So it's worse than useless. A codified system, where the measurements are communicated, would be a splendid improvement all by itself. This exists for men's pants and pre-tailored suits. Why hasn't it been translated to other clothing?
I understand that, even with a measurements based system, clothing will sometimes not fit correctly due to body shape and manufacturers being loose with their specs. That won't change, sure, but this system won't be worse, and will get people the right clothing more often. I've taken to bringing a measuring tape to the store when I go shopping. You'd be surprised how often things fit on the first try when I get the actual measurements before bringing them to the fitting room.
Yes, I've worked in apparel ecommerce for some major brands, and many that market to older women use vanity sizing (beyond the general trend in the article), which leads to a high rate of return. You can put a vendor size chart right on the product page, but if the customer thinks "my size is X" instead of "my measurements are W, X, Y, and Z" they won't bother checking.
Men's clothes aren't that different. Measure the actual waists of a few pairs of chinos and jeans and compare to the sizing.
Also worth noting that quality control and variability in manufacturing is so scattershot that 5 pairs of size 32 Levi's 501s will fit very differently.
I know this adds little to nothing to the conversation but I've had a vastly different experience. I've been buying Levi's 513 34/32s for the past I don't know how many years and literally every pair fits just like the one before it. Whether I bought them from a store in SF when I was traveling, or a Boston Macy's or Amazon. It's probably the number one reason I stick with this jean, because I know I will get a consistent fit.
I have a very hard time finding anything to fit me as a 5'8" slim male it's nearly impossible. I am somewhere between medium and small sometimes one or the other or in the middle.
I've had pants tailored and they were amazing it was like I was part of the human race having actual pants that fit it's amazing how much it affects your personality and how ill fitting clothes make you feel.
But shirts that's something I've never had tailored. If I could afford it I'd have all my clothes tailored to fit.
Tailoring shirts can be very inexpensive. Good shirts can be purchased in your choice of arm length and neck size; from there any half-decent tailor or seamstress can take in any 'billow' in the body and sleeves so it fits perfectly. (Sleeves can obviously be shortened as well, if necessary, but it often won't be.) At least here in western Canada, about $15 would be a reasonable price to have a shirt fully altered.
I'm about the same size. Men's shirts are usually just Small-Medium-Large, and even Small often fits me like a tent. I've done some custom, and it's not that expensive compared to the time and cost of finding and buying clothes that fit.
T-shirts, yes. Dress shirts are generally collar size / sleeve length, with a handful of companies (Brooks Bros. and Charles Tyrwhitt, off the top of my head) offering 3-4 different body cuts as well.
As a 6'4 dude with a 32 in waist and a 35/in inseam, I just said fuck it. Let people think what they want about my clothes. Finding pants that 'fit' is a joke. It cracks me up that women don't think men have this problem.
> Finding pants that 'fit' is a joke. It cracks me up that women don't think men have this problem.
Funny mainly because they don't think that?
> Ah shit, its 2015, I shouldn't say that.
Really you shouldn't say that because it makes zero sense and has absolutely nothing to do with the article.
The article is about how women's garments are sized completely differently (and totally arbitrarily) compared to men's. And plenty more women have problems finding clothes that fit due to garments being cut for arbitrary chest sizes. So, your sexist comment not only makes no sense, it's totally out of place.
I have similar measurements (34" waist, I'm also taller) and I find gap/old navy fits perfectly. Order online, choose the "tall" tab on the product page and choose 36" inseam there.
Old Navy Jeans fall apart way too fast for me and I don't even wear them very hard. I've stopped buying them after the last two pairs wore holes within 6 months. Maybe I just got unlucky but examination of the material shows them to be much thinner than a pair of Levi's or Wranglers.
Have you tried Cabelas, Duluth Trading, or Filsons? They do a good job for me, and it sounds like we have similar pants sizes. I bet you also have the same problem as I have with non-tall shirts: they're always too short in the torso and sleeves when they're the "right size" instead of baggy.
Americans gained about 1/2" (women) to 1 1/2" (men) in the 100 years to 2012. I don't know how much of that was gained in the first or last half of the century.
As a 200cm/6'6" man with broad shoulders, ordering clothes is easy: just order the biggest size. It's occasionally too big, made for a truly obese man, but generally it's somewhere in the range slightly-too-{small|large}. I can't fathom how difficult it must be for ordinary-sized people in the middle of the range, trying to figure out whether this company's size S is that company's size L.
Heh, it reminds me of going through a catalogue to order some shoulderpads for gridiron - there was a set for defensive linemen that started at 5XL and went up to 12XL, the highest number of X's I've ever seen.
There was plenty outcry when sizes 0 and 00 were introduced, and what attracted my attention to this article was not so much that dress sizes had changed upwards, but that such sizes are not "new", "anorexic" sizes at all!
I don't know about the absolute trends, but I do know that men's clothing isn't much better as far as standardized sizing. Probably the only saving grace of men's fashion is that it isn't nearly as unfashionable or important if men's clothes are poorly fitted.
If you actually care about how your clothes fit and the style, then prepare to spend hours shopping per garment, or go custom.
I don't understand why all clothing sizes (for both men and women) aren't just in inches (or cm)? Why do the clothing manufacturers have to make everything so confusing?
Because the number of measurements you'd care about is way too high, and even if you knew the size, that doesn't mean you know if the 'fit' is good for that kind of garment.
For instance, this weekend I bought two pairs of jeans. That means I tried on about 20 pairs. Waist size was the least of the issues. Does if fit the legs? Does it fits my butt? Does my package fit comfortably? It's hard to make it all work at once.
Sadly, I think the only way for most Americans to maintain a healthy lifestyle would require significant, paternalistic education and intervention. One idea others have proposed would be clearly-and-emphatically warn of future denial of certain healthcare expenses and conditions for people that fail to achieve and maintain reasonable goals to curtail high-risk lifestyle choices, i.e., smoking, poor diet. The key is conditions which arise even with good lifestyle habits should have priority over people that don't take care of themselves and expect everyone else to clean up their mess.
(I'd be first in line because I could lose 20 lbs (9 kg).)
> One idea others have proposed would be clearly-and-emphatically warn of future denial of certain healthcare expenses
A uncertain punishment in the distant future doesn't motivate anyone to do anything. That is human nature. Charging per kilo for airline tickets though may be a motivator though, because by losing weight you immediately save money.
What really counts is happiness over time, with things like time dealing with diabetic loved ones factored in. Did anyone measure that one? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how fat you are if you had a good time and it didn't cost too much.
That's the most totalitarian/fascist thing I've read all day, congratulations I suppose.
"Paternal education" has been seen before on a horrifying worldwide scale, for the most recently famous examples we have Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, The Kim's, etc.
Really now, that's how you think we should fix the problem of unhealthy Americans?
I guess it depends on what you mean by "studies" and "A/B" testing since this kind of pricing test has probably been done informally since the sizing was standardized. It may have only become effective after Americans started getting really fat.
I guess the idea is to have two identical garments labelled with different sizes, and see if one is more likely to sell. Perhaps there is not a big difference, and the size inflation is more about creating customer goodwill.
It isn't off-topic with respect to the parent, which you chose to remain in place. It simply illustrates the absurdity of allowing a government to define "a healthy lifestyle".
That's partly true, and we probably could have cut one branch closer to the trunk, but these are judgment calls. By casually tossing in flamebait you derailed an already wobbling train completely.
Working is a requirement and being gay isn't a choice. Smoking and poor diet are choices that you can resolve. Smoking in short-term can be replaced with vaping. Poor diet can be fixed by eating less.
What does killing oneself with excesses and risky habits like drugs, alcohol, food, driving too fast, riding a bike/motorcycle without a helmet, etc. have to do with being gay?
PS: I have a gay roommate, so clearly I must be a Republican, believe in God, conspiracies and lynchings. Stereotyping troll fail.
Gay men are often stereotyped to have a lot of changing sexual partners, which increases the risks for STIs. There are quite a few countries that forbid gay men from donating blood because of this.
The blood donation ban isn't because of the stereotype of changing partners. It's because men who have sex with men are much more likely to have HIV. [1] (81% of all newly diagnosed HIV cases are from men who have sex with men)
Now whether the ban is effective or necessary is another debate, but it's a legitimate public health debate. Not just an attack on homosexuals driven by ignorance.
The entire blood donation routine lifestyle/behaviors questionnaire of self-reporting is of little value because people can make mistakes or intentionally misrepresent their status. A far better approach is to test all donated blood, all the time for significant communicable, incurable diseases. If it's "too expensive," then newer/cheaper tests need to be developed.
All blood is tested for HIV and other infections diseases[1]
The reason for the questionnaires is that a recent HIV infection won't always show up even with the best most sophisticated tests.
So we do the best we can to screen out people who are most likely to have recently acquired HIV. Screening out IV drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, and people form countries with high rates of HIV, eliminates the vast majority of new HIV cases without eliminating a large percent of the population.
Again, people can lie so self-reporting may not be worth it. You'd have to do a study to find out. And even if it is, the number of HIV infections prevented may be so low that it doesn't justify infringing on the rights of people to donate. But, that's the debate.
There is no debate that a hateful double-standard (lifetime ban) is allowed to stand, the questionnaire can be essentially eliminated right now by more rigorous and comprehensive testing using modern lab processes. If the testing is up to standards, arbitrarily throwing out certain groups is a only shortcut which imposes hate systematically and normalizes it.
It isn't "hateful", it is reducing the likelihood of someone getting an infectious disease from a blood transfusion, by any means necessary. Even if you wave a wand and improve testing, then remove the ban, you're still going to have higher rates of infection than if you improve testing and keep the ban.
If public health is improved more by the ban, than it is reduced by decreasing the supply of blood somewhat or increasing the cost of testing, then it is totally irrational to insist the ban be removed (assuming your goal is to maximize public health).
I haven't read anything that indicates that there is a time and cost effective test that can detect HIV in blood during the 2 week window period.
That being said, I've never taken a stand on the morality or efficacy of questionnaires (and I definitely don't support a lifetime ban, neither does the red cross by the way).
I do however, think that labeling a public health policy as hateful is counter productive.
Hateful implies that the doctors and policy makers who instituted the ban hate men who have sex with men (as well as IV drug users, sex workers, and people from high risk countries). I don't think that's true.
> The blood donation ban isn't because of the stereotype of changing partners. It's because men who have sex with men are much more likely to have HIV. [1] (81% of all newly diagnosed HIV cases are from men who have sex with men)
Those aren't unrelated. They're much more likely to have HIV because of the many simultaneous partners.
Yeah, I've seen it on the questionnaires. That's just wrong and an obvious form of pervasive hate. I think the determination should be strictly related to risky behaviors like not using condoms or sharing needles.
Also, the testing of the blood should be better (more frequent and comprehensive, esp. HIV and hepatitis families) and not simply arbitrarily throw the few people out that actually take the time to donate blood.
Men who have sex with men account for 81% of new HIV cases diagnosed each year. You basically eliminate half of possible HIV cases by eliminating only a few percent of the population. It's a legitimate public health issue, the same as banning people from countries with high HIV rates from donating blood.
Whether an individual's rights to donate blood outweigh the risks to public health is open to debate, or whether the ban is effective is open to debate. However, the ban is driven by numbers not hate.
I tend to think the ban isn't effective simply because it relies on self reporting.
It's a form of discrimination equivalent to banning African Americans from donating blood. [0] Because a group "might" engage in risky behavior, it's unfair to assume all members do and are therefore treated differently than other groups.
That is entirely possible. I'm not making a value judgement, I'm only stating the practical implications, and the reasons behind the ban.
Society may decide that it's not worth the marginal increase (if any) in public safety to infringe on an individual's right to donate blood (if society decides this right exists).
However there are a few practical differences. Banning African American's might mean less HIV infected blood, but it's not practical because African Americans make up 12% of the population, and they make up more than that for certain blood types. Furthermore banning heterosexual African Americans wouldn't reduce the amount of potentially infected blood nearly as much as banning men who have sex with men.
If men who have sex with men had similar rates of new HIV infections to African Americans and made up 12% of the population, they likely wouldn't be banned either.
If you ban men who have sex with men, you eliminate over 3/4 of newly acquired cases and only eliminate a few percent of the population.
>Because a group "might" engage in risky behavior
They don't ban people for being gay and possibly engaging in risky behavior. They ban men who have had sex with other men. This is classified as a high risk behavior (in respect to acquiring HIV).
They also ban sex workers, because engaging in sex work is defined as a high risk behavior, not because they are making a value judgment against sex workers.
No it is a simple and efficient engineering policy. Probably it is not fair. It does not matter. Efficiency is better that fairness in a lot of cases. That being one of them.
Being gay has nothing to do with high-risk behaviors. It's just that gays have been stereotyped as being promiscuous. But that was merely a sampling artifact. Highly promiscuous gays came out first. Indeed, being highly promiscuous was a political statement. But it's risky behavior, no matter what ones sexual preferences might be.
Kinda puts into perspective the (inaccurate anyway) claims about Marilyn Monroe or whoever's dress size. The "standards of beauty" of the 1950s placed, if anything, an even greater emphasis on being slim than they do today.
In the 1950s, hourglass figures were what was hot. I'm not sure that qualifies as slim, compared to the previous 3 decades, and especially not the decade after: http://greatist.com/grow/100-years-womens-body-image
I read this and think to myself sarcastically "Thank God the government got involved." and then I realize there are probably a non-trivial amount of people within the US who probably think the government should re-involve themselves in this matter.
Then I wonder what type of person doesn't understand how markets work and why they think this matter is any kind of issue. I can elaborate more if needed in follow-up replies to avoid being seen as just flame bait material.
The fast-food and processed food maker lobbyists are involved, that is for sure. A fat nation is a profitable nation, but if everyone just went for a daily jog (a half marathon perhaps...) then they can just burn it all off.
The engineer in me wants to figure out if one could codify hips, bust, waist, and leg length to get a 4! set of combinations but I can't imagine any store that would buy 24 alternates in small, medium, large, and XL, that is 96 copies of the item just to sell one to someone. Not really economical. The thing that really bothers them though is when a supplier has reliably supplied the same size for several years and suddenly changes manufacturers or something and wham it doesn't fit.
It certainly suggests that roboticly made to order clothes would be a winner (Google could try that with their robotics companies) and one of the big obstructions, the sewing machine, is slowly succumbing to automation
[1] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/automated-mini-factories-wi... [1]