Size 14 is the New Size 10

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sven Sven's picture
Size 14 is the New Size 10

       

Sven Sven's picture

Marketing people are crafty buggers: Even as the average Body Mass Index of Americans has generally been [url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/10/attitudes.overweight/index.html][co..., a smaller and smaller percentage of Americans think they are overweight.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

jrose

That magic number holds so much power in contemporary society, especially for women, but also for men. I find we're so obsessed with hitting numbers -- whether it be a number on a scale or a dress size -- that we'd rather squeeze into a size 4 skirt than admit we're a size 7, and marketers are trying to capitalize on that.

Here's a bit more from the article:

That's why, in recent years, as the American population has become generally more overweight, brands from the luxury names to the mass retail chains have scaled down the size labels on their clothing.

"You may actually be a size 14 and, according to whatever particular store you're in, you come out a size 10," said Natalie Nixon, associate professor of fashion industry management at Philadelphia University. "It's definitely to make the consumer feel good."

Research shows that, when it comes to self-perception, the concept of "overweight" may be relative.

A working paper from a group led by Mary Burke, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Massachusetts, suggested that people's perceptions of overweight have shifted, and "normal" is now heavier than it used to be.

Stargazer

I've often wondered why each brand of jeans, or particuar stores (le Chateau - I'm looking at you), make clothes in size 0, 00, and 000. In Le Chateau world I'm a size double zero. In the real world, I'm a size 2. Silly the way these stores make us think we are thinner than we are. I guess part of it is marketing to vanity.

What is wrong with a woman who is a size 10? Nothing. Although the media would have us believe that a size 10 is simply way too heavy. It's a horrible battle, especially if you are a woman in the public - actresses, models, etc. Women can't win - either too thin, too fat, or too old...

Coyote

It is a serious problem, perpetuated daily by pop culture outliers like the corporate machines around spears and aguilera and all the the rest.

Stargazer

I know. Britney Spears, despite being a great weight and in amazing shape, still gets called too fat. Women who are over 30 are called too old. Women of all ages are called whores on a daily basis in the celebrity gossip world. It is a serious problem. If a person is too thin after succumbing to all the pressure, then they're anorexic and need to eat a cheeseburger.  If she is a little heavier or god forbid has celulite than she's disgusting and too fat. Misha Barton is a young actress and the media are constantly picking on her because she doesn't have zero percent body fat (like Posh Beckham, who isn't human from what I can tell).

jrose

Stargazer wrote:

If a person is too thin after succumbing to all the pressure, then they're anorexic and need to eat a cheeseburger. 

 

I feel that in itself can even be a publicity ploy - being anorexically thin is a surefire for young starlets to land on the cover of a magazine, and if the rules of publicity are true (no publicity is bad publicity) than it's working.

 

I stopped by the convenience store yesterday and saw a headline accompanied by pictures boasting Lauren Conrad and Jamie-Lynn Spear's cellulite and it horrified me. I can't even begin to imagine walking down the street, at any age let alone 17 years old, worrying that photographers are going to snap pictures of my legs just to humiliate me on a national level.

So, why do people even buy these magazines?

jrose

I'm not sure I'll be able to articulate this properly, but I recently read a book that Jessica Valenti edited, called Yes Means Yes that weighed in on rape culture.

One interesting point that was made, relating to Britney Spears, was how our culture fetishizes youth and even child-like behaviour. Britney Spears is the perfect example of this: She burst on to the scene at 17 in a school-girl uniform as she sang the cheesiest of pop songs. Suddenly she was adored by millions. But she fell from this pedestal as soon as the world categorizes her as impure and womanly, instead of maintaining her virginal/childlike image. As soon as she admitted she was no longer a virgin (as she promised she would remain) and put on a few extra pounds, revealing a more womanly figure, she no longer fit the mould of desirable youth.

500_Apples

It's good being a man in this case, the numbers for waistline size is based on an objective system, it would be perfect if it were in metric units.

Caissa

That would give me a 92 cm waistline. Yell

Stargazer

jrose, so right about that! I was talking about this yesterday. Britney was adored while she was still a teenager. Now she is a woman, not so much. Those mags make a fortune out of photographing and then humiliating women. It gets me really angry because the world they live in, the pressures of being too old, too fat, or too "flabby" are too much for many women to bear. They then start working out, not eating, trying to be as thin as possible. Get plastic surgery to fix up their "problems". I have a lot of sympathy for women in the film industry.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

It's clear in my experience that sizing has gone through much re-jigging in the last 25 years.  As a teenager, I loved shopping trips to the US because they carried size 3, while at home sizes only went as small as 5 and were too big.  In my late teens and early 20s, I wore a size 5 or 6.  Now, in my forties and 10 to 15 lbs heavier, I wear a 4 at home, and a 2 or 0 in the US.

jrose

It's true -- Britney is considered far less sexy with a baby on her hip than an infantalizing sucker in her mouth.

I posted this article in another thread today, but I think it applies here as well: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/07/09/miley/index.html

It's not about the fact that Miley Cyrus (and other stars) are sexualized, but HOW they're sexualized -- meaning it's OK for young women to act as though their children in school girl uniforms, but put a leather boostier on a young starlet and it's controversial:

"The outrage has so little to do with her being sexualized and everything to do with the way she's being sexualized. We're all too happy to see her clad in a girly frock and schoolgirl socks -- however, black thigh-high boots, and a black pushup bra? Horrors, that's a child! But in both cases she's an eroticized 16-year-old celebrity who has been very successfully marketed and sold to the masses. It's the straightforwardness of the sexual imagery in the Elle photos that trips our cultural inappropriateness alarm. Instead of sexualizing her childlike innocence and naiveté, it pictures her as a sexually motivated and experienced teenager (similar to the apparently outrageous bedsheet photo). Miley has crossed that fine cultural line between sexy purity and sexiness that is actually sexual."

Sven Sven's picture

Timebandit wrote:

It's clear in my experience that sizing has gone through much re-jigging in the last 25 years.  As a teenager, I loved shopping trips to the US because they carried size 3, while at home sizes only went as small as 5 and were too big.  In my late teens and early 20s, I wore a size 5 or 6.  Now, in my forties and 10 to 15 lbs heavier, I wear a 4 at home, and a 2 or 0 in the US.

That is so interesting.  I had been under the impression that a size 10 meant, well, a size 10 (an imputable number, like inches or cm).  I guess, as Stargazer (I think) noted above, the marketers are just playing to peoples' vanity (which is about as likely to go away as lust, envy, and greed!!).

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Yes, yes they are.  I should also note that I am a size large in Asia!

Sven Sven's picture

Timebandit wrote:

Yes, yes they are.  I should also note that I am a size large in Asia!

Ha!!  Ms. Sven is only about 5'3" (or as she emphatically says, 5'3" and a half!!) and is something like 125 pounds (57kg?) but has to wear EXTRA LARGE tops if they are made for women in Asia (as opposed to tops made in Asia-Pacific for sale in North America).  I wear XXXL sweatshirts (admittedly, they are a little loose for comfort) because I'm 6'5" (and a half!!) and weigh about 230 pounds so I can only imagine what an Asian-specific sized sweatshirt for me would be!!  XXXXXXXXL?!?!

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I'm not sure they make your size, Sven!

I was in China last year and traveled with a Canadian martial artist, and he wanted to have some traditional clothing - we thought he would have to have it made - he's over 6 feet tall and a big guy - but to our surprise the shop's largest sizing *just* fit him. 

At 5'6", I am considerably taller than most Chinese women, and let's not even talk about sleeve length!

Sineed

I gained eighty pounds with my 1st pregnancy, and after I lost all the weight (took a year), I went out and bought a pair of pants, and they were size 6!  I was so thrilled, when I got home I tried on a skirt I'd bought when I was 20, that was also size six, only to discover I couldn't get it past my knees.

At 45, I'm still a size six.  And I'm 15-20 pounds heavier than when I was 20, and also a size 6.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The difference in size is even more marked when you look at vintage dresses.  I have a couple that I couldn't cram myself into anymore that have much higher sizings than my newer clothes.

jrose

I find I have to wear a large at many of the trendy stores catering to young women, yet I fall right into the average weight bracket for my height. If I'm "average" and wearing the largest size in the store, the sizing math certainly doesn't add up. Yet, other stores I go to I wear a small. You'd think somewhere along the line all this would have been standardized, but of course that wouldn't be in marketer's best interests.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

dp - damn!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

If you want to see why North Americans are getting more overweight than before, just watch "Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives" on the Food Network - gignormous food serving sizes, high calorie food, very little emphasis on veggies. And those places are always packed. I know, I used to drive Route 66 in the USA, and I've had it all - including lots of chicken fried steak with dumplings  and gravy. I even brought  home a couple of menus from Denny's (I asked the managers for them). Embarassed

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Depends on the target demographic.  For example, I was in an Izod outlet store in the US (I needed a pair of golf shorts) and they had nothing under a size two, and even that was more equivalent to a size 6 in regular clothes here in Canada.  But golf stuff tends to be aimed at an older demographic, and we all tend to put on a bit of weight with age.  Stores that are geared to a younger demographic won't exaggerate the sizing nearly so much.

Michelle

I have recently lost about 50 lbs (over the last 8 months), and so I'm finding myself doing a lot more clothes shopping these days than usual, just to get some stuff that fits.  (Mostly thrift stores, these days!)

The large-sized clothing stores are also in on this scam.  I won't go into what size I am :D but suffice it to say that there is NO WAY I am the size of pants that I bought for myself a couple of months ago at Reitmans.  I remember when, as a teenager, I took that size, and I was about 50 lbs lighter than I am NOW.  That's not even 20 years ago.

The regular/small size stores are deflating the sizes from their historical points, but the large-sized stores deflate the sizes even in comparison to the regular-sized stores.

When I go to Winners (where I get my jeans - cheaper there), I'm always a size or two larger than I am at the large-sized stores.  And a size 14 in a large-sized store like Addition-Elle bears absolutely no resemblance to a size 14 (when they have it) in Suzy Shier.  I remember being in between the size 14 in large-sized and small-sized stores a decade ago.  It was miserable, because there was no place I could find things that fit since small-sized stores end around size 14 (sometimes you get lucky and find a 15 or 16 but not often) and large-sized stores also start around size 14.

writer writer's picture

Spain, Spain, how I wish we'd embrace your woman-loving ways.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=3501

jrose

Congrats on the weightloss, Michelle!

Clothes simply aren't built for real women with real curves. Finding something to fit my bust is always a struggle, no matter where I am. In a culture that glamorizes big boobs, it's baffling how many stores aren't catering to curvaceous women, and that includes chains that carry lingerie. It seems, to me at least, if your body isn't straight up and down, you're going to have one heck of a time finding something that fits properly.

And don't get me started on two-piece bathing suits that you can't mix and match! I have no statistics to back it up, but I'm pretty sure the majority of women aren't the same size top and bottom. I'll stop before I enter a full-blown rant! 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

jrose, I know you don't mean anything by this, but "real women with real curves" can be a hurtful shot to those of us who aren't curvaceous and went through hell during adolescence because of it.  I have little curve to my hip, likely never will, and I've never had a surfeit in the boob department. I am, in short, a string bean, less so now that I'm older, but still.  And I assure you, I am absolutely real in every aspect.  Real women come in all shapes and sizes.

I know what you mean about swimsuits, though.  I can relate to bra size difficulties because, while my problem is that I'm small rather than large, they don't carry my size in most stores.  I often have trouble finding blouses that hang right, too. 

Refuge Refuge's picture

I agree with Timebandit.  I am far from, ahem, well endowed and have problems finding shirts that either don't sag or make me look like a boy.  I have an unusual body type, because I am at the bottom of my BMI, have a small chest but normal size hips and am compact in my height things are always gapping out at the back, to long on the legs or to small at the waist.  I would hazzard a guess to say a more accurate statement is that cloths aren't made for most women period.

Swimsuits - it's hard to find my size top, but they always have the bottom and HAVE TO buy my swimsuits from the stores that sell the two piece bathing suits seperately becuase I have yet to find one suit that fits both bottom and top (before I found the ones where I could buy them seperate I used to buy two suits - one for the top and one for the bottom).  I am still searching for the girl who is well endowed with straight hips so if anyone knows her tell her I have a dozen swimsuits for her.

Personally I have never cared about numbers.  The biggest I wore was 16 or 18 or something.  I knew that it was all a big scam on the part of the stores (one of the lessons that ironically was taught to me very early on by a program about sexuality that is being discussed in another thread).  I mainly bought my clothes at goodwill most of my teenage life so never had to worry about numbers and I never picked up on the importance of it after that (thank god).

Doug

500_Apples wrote:

It's good being a man in this case, the numbers for waistline size is based on an objective system, it would be perfect if it were in metric units.

 

Not so fast! "Vanity sizing" is a phenomenon in men's clothing as well, just perhaps not to the same extent.

Sineed

http://thisiswhyyourefat.com/ 

Featured today: twinkies rolled in corn flakes and deep-fried, bacon chocolate peanut butter cup, and (my fave) meatbread.