Hello my beautiful doves. Welcome back to my channel or welcome if this is
your first time around, if this is your first rodeo, my name is Mina and today's topic is
going to be about standardized sizing. So you may be wondering: "Mina, what is standardized sizing?" Well, I mean the size
labels that are attached to virtually every modern
ready-to-wear garment that we own. They're either numbered like,
two, four, six... Different countries have
different sizing systems, so we're mainly going to talk about the US, because that's where I live and
that's where I'm most familiar with. You also get size labels that have
letters on them like S, M and L. So today we're going to be addressing
all the questions you may have about this arbitrary confusing system. How did a size 4
come to mean a 26 inch waist? Why are vintage sizes so
different from contemporary sizes? And why are there basically no
clothes that go beyond a size XL? And, was Marilyn Monroe
really plus sized? Let's get into it. We gotta start with the history. Sorry, if this part is a little doozy,
but it's important, trust me. We gotta understand how this
all came to be, you know? So the development of mass-produced clothing, actually has roots in Wartime,
in the 18th Century. Large standing armies required
large quantities of uniforms, so clothing contractors like Richard Lowe would produce hundreds of thousands
of uniforms for the soldiers. So, in the ready-made business, men's clothes had a bit of a head
start compared to women's clothes. By 1850, men's clothing was the largest
manufacturing enterprise in New York City, which was the largest
manufacturing city in the country. This clothing revolution was seen as
a marker of true Republican progress! The United States Magazine
and Democratic Review wrote: "Articles of clothing are now at the
command of the lowest members of society, which, but a Century since, were
scarcely within the reach of crowned heads". Women, on the other hand,
still preferred custom garments, mainly because women's fashion
dictated a tight corseted silhouette, which was hard to produce in mass. Like, if we look at early
ready-made men's clothing, the fit is pretty loose. It's pretty casual. If you're a lady,
that's just not happening, like, immediately were dressed at the ball. Sometimes tailors would sell completed pieces, kind of like, sample pieces, I guess,
if we wanted to make a modern day equivalent. But unfortunately,
these clothes were kind of a flop, because they usually required
further tailoring afterwards to make them a little bit more snatched. Winifred Aldrich claims that: "It was the change in women's
fashion at the turn of the Century "that was the largest single factor "that allowed the development of
cheap ready-made clothing for women". You see, Paris fashions
from 1908 to 1913 shifted from the tightly corseted
figure to a looser soft cylinder shape that could then be flattened
and translated into basic rectangle patterns, similar to patterns that we have today. Around this time, the US started to draft sizing manuals
for women's wholesale manufacturers, but from magazines and newspaper
testimonials of the time, we can see that size standardization
had much to be desired. A retail executive wrote
in a 1927, New York Times article: "I don't know who the mythical size
36 is who forms the basis of sizing, "but average, tall, short,
thin and plump women "come into a department store and
the 36 size fits none of them". Emily C. Davis wrote an article published
in 1930 in the Science Newsletter saying: "Women are complaining
because of the time and money "they must spend in having
clothes refitted at the stores, "and retailers are disturbed
at the expense involved "in the maintenance of large
alteration departments, "and the loss of good-will and money
in returned goods and controversies "over unsatisfactorily fitted garments". So, two statisticians, Ruth O'Brien and... I always forget the man's name. William Shelton, conducted the first large-scale survey measuring women and children's
bodies between 1938-- Wait. 1939 and 1941. In their study, they measured
approximately 15,000 women and took 59 measurements in hopes of being able to find some
kind of proportional relationship between the different
measurements of the body that could then be translated
to a simple sizing system. Surprise, surprise! They arrived at no such
proportional relationship, because women are built in all shapes
and sizes with no real rhyme or reason. It wasn't until almost 1958 when
the National Bureau of Standards finally took a look at the data and came
up with an official commercial system. Woman's sizes were now
derived from the bust, with all other measurements
proportional to an hourglass figure, and these measurements were represented
on even numbers from 8 to 38. I just also want to mention that, if you ever see a vintage
item with a half size, like eight and a half, for instance, these half sizes were sometimes used to
indicate that the garment was shorter, so it was made for a petite woman. Sometimes half sizes could also
mean that the garment was plus sized and odd numbers were
used to denote junior sizing, so don't be shocked if you find any
old clothes with odd number labeling. When people say
Marilyn Monroe was a size 12, I can see why they would think
she's a modern size large, because that's what that
size corresponds to, these days. But back in the 1950s,
her dressmaker actually said: "Marilyn had a 22 inch waist
and 35 inch hips". However, enthusiasm for
this system waned over time, and by 1983, the government
withdrew the standard completely. And thus, chaos was born! I mean, to be fair, there was a lot of
discontent with the standard O'Brien and Shelton only took measurements of white women. Women of color did show up to get measured
and they just scrapped their data. Very nice. They also offered a
stipend to volunteers, and so people realize that the results kind
of skewed towards poor and malnourished women. Starting around the 1970s, we also have the new concept of vanity sizing, which for anyone who's not familiar, is the reason why a dress that has the
same measurements for a size 12 in 1958, would be redefined as a size 6 by 2011, which I will expand on in a little bit. So, that's numerical sizing. Alpha sizing which are the letters S, M and L
didn't come about until like around the '90s. According to the Wall Street Journal: "Alpha sizing arrived with increased
popularity of relaxed clothing and sportswear", think, I don't know,
baggy t-shirts and yoga pants. That relied less on exact fit. Speaking of ill-fitting clothes... So, I conducted a
little poll on my Patreon, where I asked my patrons what they
thought about standardized sizing and I got a range of answers, but most of them skewed towards the negative,
which I'm not really surprised about. One of my patrons wrote: "I think what bothers me the
most about 'standardized sizing' "is that it's really not standard
at all across different brands. "I wear different size jeans in Levi's,
Agolde, Free People, BDG, etc... "It's especially frustrating when this
happens within brands of the same group "like I always have to size down for
Free People and Anthropology clothes, but at Urban Outfitters i have to be
true to size or sometimes size up. One of the main reasons why we get so much size
differentiation is because of vanity sizing, which I mentioned earlier. So, the definition
of "vanity sizing" is: "The labeling of clothes with sizes
smaller than the actual cut of the items". This is clear in how sizes
have changed over the years, but also explains why sizes differentiate
now between contemporary brands, because it's basically just up
to the brand's discretion what they choose to
make a size M or a size L. For instance, Esquire
writer Abram Sauer tested men's pants produced
by common brands like H&M, Calvin Klein, Gap and Old Navy, and found that the actual measurements
were often two to three inches larger than the indicated size. The Old Navy pants he looked at measured five inches bigger than
the size they were labeled as! So, what is the point of vanity sizing? Like, it sounds like all it's designed to do
is create a lot of confusion for buyers... Well... The Journal of Consumer
Psychology found that: Smaller size labels actually increase
the self-esteem of customers, and larger size labels decrease their self-esteem. This is how it works, so, say you walk into a store and
you've gained a little bit of quarantine weight, which is not a bad thing,
by the way, that's NOT a bad thing--! You have been a size 8
for most of your adult life. You go into the store that has had
consistent sizing for several years now, and you try on a dress marked a
size 8 and it feels really tight. It doesn't really fit. Then, let's say, you go to a store
with more inconsistent sizing, like, I don't know, H&M, and you try on a dress marked size 8 there and it fits perfectly! The gag is that this H&M size 8 dress
is actually two to three inches larger than the average size 8 dress. So really it's a size 10. But because the dress is marked a size 8, you feel validated like, "oh, you didn't actually gain that much weight". And the consequence is: You probably will buy the dress and you'll probably have a better
impression of H&M as a company. You see how the fashion industry just likes
to feed on people's body insecurities? As a disclaimer,
I do want to be transparent. I've definitely dealt with my own handful of
body and weight issues throughout my entire life, and it's taken years of work to unlearn. And even now I recognize I will
continue to have to unlearn, because, you know, bodies are
meant to change throughout life and I know my body now is gonna
look different than my body in-- I don't know, 10 years. I don't want to come off as too preachy, because I can't really know
experiences that aren't mine. But i just really really
want the best for all of us, which is why I'm about
to say this whole spiel. In general, I think it's really damaging when
people buy clothes that are sizes smaller because they feel like there's a stigma
buying clothes that actually fit them. Lingerie expert, Cora Harrington,
and let me just say: I think Cora is so wise and I've really appreciated reading all of
the things that she's ever had to say...! That's probably the saddest thing
about me deactivating Twitter is that I don't get to see Cora's tweets anymore. She's really just--
She's really amazing, but anyway! She did an interview with Jezebel,
where she talks about bra sizes, but I feel like this point can be... You know, across the board. Basically she talks about how there's
a stigma for sizes above a D cup. So she says like, a lot of people who would be more
comfortable wearing say a 30F bra, will wear this uncomfortable 38D because of this stigma. Which sucks, because an ill-fitting bra
is literally like, medieval torture. In another study I read,
the authors stated: "Women can monitor changes of body
size by the fit of their clothes. "They identify with their clothes size and
blame their own bodies if clothes do not fit. "When this link between body
and clothes size is disrupted "and the familiar size is
replaced by a larger size, "it causes discomfort
and body dissatisfaction". There are studies that women will buy
dress sizes one or two sizes smaller, because they feel like this will
incentivize them to lose weight, so that they can eventually
fit into these dresses. That's not healthy, and honestly, I have a lot of skirts and pants that don't
have a stretchy waist because they're vintage, and so if I don't fit into them anymore, I try to donate them or give them
to friends like, immediately, because I think it's just healthier
to enjoy living in the present, rather than focusing all your happiness
on this hypothetical future that you... May not even reach. And I know that if I keep
these clothes with me, I'll just keep fixating on this one day that I'll eventually be able
to wear this skirt again. Dieting is not a bad thing,
by the way, like inherently. I'm not saying that... But I just think that if
you do choose a diet, you should do so with the goal of feeling
better in your body and feeling healthier, which is such an individual thing
that also depends on your unique body type. So, back to vanity sizing, if smaller size labels
make people feel good, why don't all brands just add two to
three inches to their clothing sizes? So here's the interesting thing: The same study that found the link
between self-esteem and clothing size, also found that people who
had their self-esteem lowered would engage in this practice
called "compensatory consumption", which is the act of buying things without
size labels like, say, jewelry or makeup, to then boost their self-esteem. So, retailers win either way, it seems! - You know what's the most
exciting thing about winning? It's when you win! I love that feeling! And this is all just alluding
to this bigger problem where clothes are no
longer meant to fit us, we are meant to fit into the clothes. And I don't really know
how to reconcile with this, because bespoke tailoring
is just so expensive! It's so inaccessible... It takes a long time to
order something custom made, and so, if you order like a week in
advance to your friend's birthday party, you are not going to
get that dress in time! And these garments
can't actually be returned if you decide you don't
actually like this design anymore, because the garment was literally
created to fit you and only you. It can't be resoled again. Standardized sizing also
makes it easier to shop online. One of my patrons for
instance pointed out: "I would find it really difficult
to have to search Poshmark "by typing in my measurements or
measurements of the items. "Between all the different ways
you can measure clothing "(flat lay vs. circumference,
inseam vs. total length), "it just feels too time
consuming and error-prone. "I think it's much easier to click S/M or
4/6/8 to narrow down my initial search, "and then check the size guide or measurements
on the garments I'm interested in. "That said, standardized
sizing on its own, "not accompanied by sizing guides or
garment measurements is completely useless". Inefficient sizing and lack
of accurate size shirts can actually contribute to clothing
waste and environmental pollution too. If you are producing a lot of clothes
that just don't fit a lot of people, especially in the age of online shopping,
when it also costs more to the environment to ship this particular item
to this individual person, and for that person to ship it back, companies are kind of enabling people to
throw out their clothes that don't fit, especially when these clothes are bought
on final sale and can't be returned. There's also this problem where lots
of people don't even fit into these, so-called, average sizes, because for women's clothes, these measurements are so heavily
based on the hourglass proportion. - Sorry I can't be her! In the early 2000s, the TechStyle clothing technology
corporation conducted a widespread study of almost 11,000 women's
bodies using body scanners, and these women ranged from age 18 to age 80. The main finding was that women's bodies
have increased in size over the years, so you would think that we would update our sizing
system to reflect this new average. The study also noted five to
seven different body shapes with only 8% of women
having the hourglass shape. And finally, I just want to address the
lack of certain size clothing, So, in 2019, Alysse Dalessandro posted
this tweet regarding Savage X Fenty: "S to XL vs 1X to 3X. "I understand construction cannot
always be the same for plus size "(especially in lingerie), "but I know you can do
strappy bralettes in plus, "so why do brands do this?" Curve model @ashleighchubbybunny,
on Instagram, similarly told Teen Vogue: "Other brands that cater to plus-sizes
have no problem creating the same, or even sexier lingerie for plus-sizes". Ashleigh believes that the design
disparity stems from the cultural belief that only certain types of women
should be allowed to show off skin. These are very valid points, but I do want to note
that lingerie production is... A bit more complicated
than regular clothing production, and Cora Harrington wrote about
Savage X Fenty in a 2018 blog post, and what she
says is pretty interesting. So, Rihanna partnered with
TechStyle to create Savage X Fenty, and TechStyle has never
made intimate apparel before. Cora says: "Partnering with a company that has no
prior history of producing a bra line "has repercussions for the size range as well. "In this case, the maximum cup size is DD, "which is the absolute outer edge of
what could be considered 'core sizing'. "The DD/E cup mark is a size break, "where the pattern and construction
of the bra needs to change. "And it's no easy task; "a new size range can literally
take years to produce. "Even if TechStyle is going
the private label route, "it would still take time to research
and contract with these companies, "who would then still need to produce a product
that aligns with the rest of the range". Okay, so I realized I have to re-record this part, because when I was like, editing... I think the way I wear this the first time, maybe a lawsuit worthy-- I don't know, we're not taking any chances. So, anyway, I'm sharing
all this information because I want to paint a more objective
picture of what might be happening, but with all that said, I still think that, in this case, there is some at least implicit
bias against fat people just from looking at the way
that these two models are posed. Like, the slim model is
posed really confidently and the curved model
is hiding her stomach. So, yeah... I also don't know if Savage X Fenty
has made newer, better collections since this happened because
it was a couple years ago... I don't really keep up with
them anymore because... They're not very transparent
with their production practices, so that kind of makes me uncomfortable. You should also watch Mia's
video on Savage X Fenty, because I thought that was pretty informative
and it gives you a clearer picture of... The company's antics. Anyways, as of 2019, 68% of US
women were a size 14 and above, and only 10% of mass market
apparel and 0.6% of luxury apparel are categorized as plus size. And yes, before
anyone says anything: I do understand that there are
costs in creating a plus size range, like we already dipped our toes into
that for the Savage X Fenty thing, but I did read an interview with
Denise Lee, the founder of Alala, and currently Alala does
have a size range up to 3X. And she said: "We had to make new patterns
for every single style in a 1X. "That cost time and money to make only patterns. "It's much more expensive to do that "than to just tell the factory to grade
up the pattern from a Small to a 3X". In saying that, there's really no excuse for larger brands, especially the luxury sector,
which has a ton of money...! Like 0.6% of a luxury sector catering
to plus size is really unacceptable, because they have so much money! They have so much money
to invest in resources and to hire on people who
can design for plus size. At this point, they're at best not
prioritizing a huge sector of the population. According to Tim Gunn's 2016
article for the Washington Post: "ModCloth customer survey noted that its
plus size shoppers place 20% more orders "than its straight-sized customers". And, at worst, they're straight-up fatphobic. Lest we forget CEO of
Abercrombie, Mike Jeffries, - Oh, brother...
This guy stinks! And this one interview he did,
where he said: "Candidly, we go after the cool kids. "We go after the attractive all-American kid
with a great attitude and a lot of friends. "A lot of people don't
belong in our clothes "and they can't belong. "Are we exclusionary? "Absolutely. "Those companies that are in
trouble are trying to target everybody: "Young, old, fat, skinny. "But then you become a totally vanilla. "You don't alienate anybody, "but you don't excite anybody, either". Okay, then. According to one study read, the groups that have the most problem
finding clothes are, unsurprisingly, plus-sized women, the elderly
and disabled people. And I feel like it's obvious... But the reason we need more inclusive sizes
is not for some silly aesthetic reason, even though that should be
a good enough reason too, because like, skinny people are allowed to
be just like, aesthetic and experimental, then fat people should
also be allowed to be. Anyways, the authors
of the study write: "Wearing the right clothes with a good fit
contributes to the confidence and comfort "of the wearer both
physically and socially. "Being inappropriately dressed for an occasion "can cause feelings of
awkwardness and vulnerability". So, in conclusion, I don't really have a remedy
for this entire problem, because I am one person and also I understand that standardized
sizing is more cost effective for businesses, but also for people as well, because as we talked about earlier,
bespoke tailoring is expensive. You'd have to live near a dressmaker and you'd have to be
so sure in what you're buying, that you know you
would never return it, which is a lot to ask
for a lot of people. So, we're back... I realized that the first take I did, the conclusion just didn't
sound positive enough, like... It was more doom and gloom. And that's not how I'm
trying to be on this channel. So, I slept on it... And now I'm back with different words: Fortunately, we are moving
forward to more diversity, more gender inclusion, more different bodies on the runway... But it is a slow progress and
it definitely could be better, especially when
tokenism is involved, like-- Let's not go down that route, please. I think what's important here is, you know,
just keeping up the momentum, because as much power as these brands have; like, they depend on consumers as well
and boycotting does work, especially in the age of social media, where it's a lot easier to organize
and spread information. If a brand is not catering to all its customers, if they don't have ethical practices, if they don't have sustainable practices... It's up to all of us to
join hands in this situation, not just the people
who are directly affected. From one skinny bitch to another, PLEASE stop shopping at Brandy Melville. Like, they suck and their
clothes are ugly, anyway. And for anyone who walks into a
store and feels bad about themselves, I really just want to read some of Tim
Gunn's words that he said in that interview I cited earlier: "This is a design failure
and not a customer issue. "There is no reason larger women can't
look just as fabulous as all other women. "The key is the harmonious
balance of silhouette, "proportion and fit,
regardless of size or shape". Okay, that's all I have for today. Thank you so much for watching. Let me know in the comments
what you think about standardized sizing, how this affects you... I guess how it does--
Actually, no. I don't want to hear it
if it doesn't affect you. Yeah! I hope you have
a lovely rest of your day. Thank you for spending
some time with me and I'll see you next time. Bye!
