Fracture according to this article Men's sizes have been standardized since the Civil War.
This is an interesting article:
Silliness reigns when it comes to women's clothing sizes
By KARIN RONNOW, Chronicle Staff Writer
I hate trying on clothes. I have no patience for it.
But the truth is, these days, if I don't try them on, I have no idea whatsoever what will fit me.
Case in point: Last summer I bought a pair of shorts from a mail-order company in a size I thought would fit me. But when they arrived, they fell right off my hips. I had to send them back.
Then one day this winter, I slipped and fell, with a full-body splash, in an icy puddle. I was soaked and needed something else to wear. I dashed to a nearby department store, grabbed a stack of pants in "my size" and hit the dressing room.
But as I tried them on, one after another, they were all huge. My patience quickly grew thin.
Then the saleswoman brought me a pair of Ralph Lauren jeans. I laughed out loud before trying them on -- I haven't worn that size since I was in junior high. But they fit. And I bought them.
And from where Ralph Lauren stands, that's precisely the point.
Welcome to the world of "vanity sizing."
These days, as women get larger and taller, clothiers have decided to ignore the half-century-old sizing standards and label big clothes with small sizes. The idea is that women will be so flattered that the size 6 fits that they'll spend more money for the "smaller" clothes.
"Vanity sizing has become a huge selling tool," according to wordspy.com. "In general, the pricier the clothes, the smaller the sizes must read. Sadly, this silliness is proven to sell clothes."
And it is silliness, time-consuming, money-grubbing silliness.
Now, maybe vanity sizing appeals to women who yearn to fit into a smaller size without actually losing any weight. But for the rest of us, it has made shopping a royal pain.
Furthermore, it's insulting. It reminds me of women who lie about their age -- c'mon, who cares really? Be proud of who you are.
Maybe it just makes me so mad because my patience is running really thin lately, given the state of world affairs. I know my irritability threshold is abnormally high.
But men can walk into a store, pick up a size 16x32 shirt and go home knowing it will fit -- why can't we?
Men's sizes, in fact, have been standardized since the Civil War, when the military generated a set of standard male sizes in order to mass produce uniforms, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
After the war, the sizes became the norm. Simple enough.
Not so for women's clothes.
In the 1920s -- with the emergence of industrial production and chain stores -- manufacturers began churning out ready-to-wear women's clothing. But the clothes never really fit well. So beginning in 1937, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Bureau of Home Economics embarked on a project to measure 15,000 women. It took a few more such surveys, but by the mid-1950s the standards were set.
But not for long.
"With the passing of time, the standards became outdated. Both American men and women were becoming heavier," according to the NIST Web site. "Manufacturers discovered the advantage of appealing to women's vanity. They began selling bigger clothes labeled with smaller size numbers."
Bingo: vanity. We threw the whole thing out the window.
The federal government is said to be gearing up for another national sizing survey, but I bet no one will use it.
A whole generation of teenage girls have grown accustomed to the vanity sizing. And, human nature being what it is, many women won't give up their size-6 self images without a fight.
And that means I'm doomed to spend way too much time and mental energy finding a pair of pants that fit.
It appears that, at least for now, silliness reigns.
red
|
smaller sizes
We lose more fat and less muscle, thus are smaller at higher weights 
Linear Mode
