Why is it that men can buy pants with the waist size i.e. 36 and the length i.e. 34 and know that these pants will fit them but women have guess at their size? Seems like the slacks are either too short or too long for me and lots of other friends --- why aren't women's clothing sized like men's? Seems like that would make life just a little easier, doesn't it?

and dont you just love where in one store, one brand, you are a size 18, and another brand in the same store you are a 16, and go to another store, you are a 14?

even if you do know what size you are at one place, it dosent mean a thing anywhere else.

You're right, Lynda! So why do you think that women's clothing aren't sized like men's? Anyone have any idea on this?

I found a really cool website.

Apparently, during the Civil war, manufactories began to take advantage of the need for clothing for soldiers about half-way through the war. It was noticed that there were certain repeating sizes of waist and leg length, so there were standardized cuts of coats and trousers made.

Women were much later in the development of "ready-made" clothing.. which is where the need for standardized sizing was created (this was in the 1920's). Women also varied in shape and height a great deal, and their clothing reflected a much more diverse fashion "need" then men typically did.

This site gives quite a lot of historical information about this issue.

There is presently a move to make a more equally standardized sizing chart.

Thanks, Sher --- that makes sense or at least
it made sense back then. Sure hope they make some quick progress on the new sizing charts.
It would be so nice to order an outfit out of a catalog and know that it's going to fit.

Good answer, Sher!

men need to have it spelled out that clearly and know that a pair of pants will fit them. If you've ever gone shopping w/ a boyfriend you know they absolutely hate to try things on!

One other thing is that it's easy for the waist and inseam measurements to dictate fit for men's jean, but no so for women's. Men generally don't have hips or butts, but women sure do; that's why waist & inseam measurements just aren't sufficient.

Good point, JAM, and welcome to Answerpool!!!

Very good JAM....but still....they could at least make a size 6 a size 6 no matter what designer makes it. I noticed they also put smaller number sizes on what really is a bigger size....If I normally wear a 10 and try on a pair of pants and OMG, a size 6 fits me I am feeling all good and flattered and wil be more likely to buy the 6 than I would a 10.

Exactly, Kitty!
It seems to me that, for example, clothing that was a "size 14" 30 years ago, is now classed as a "size 10." Have any of you noticed that, or is just my memory? Or are manufacturers really doing that to appeal to the consumers more?

Kelleygirl - seems the girls' version of fitted sizes is slacks with a choice of "petite," "average" or "tall" - and that's if we're lucky enough to find them!

PS - Welcome, JAM!

Sizes vary... you have to try stuff on. I don't agree that the sizes have changed that much. I weighed the same in college that I do now and my sizes are basically the same. My shirt size and my pant size are different and my dress size is different still. Some pants just aren't cut for my shape while others seem perfect.

When I was heavier it was really difficult to find clothes that fit. I think it's impossible to market to people who vary so greatly. The thing that always surprised me is that they cut the clothes the same for size 2 as for size 14 so that no girl of size 14 would look good in them. What woman of size 14 is going to wear the ultra low waist jeans? Only one with no concept of dressing appropriately for her size! And why not make dress shirts in 12L for people who are bigger in the bust? If I wear a 14 the shoulders are hanging off but in a 12 the buttons are bursting... it's ridiculous.

Ami - good point about the blouses!
My daughter was complaining recently about the fit of shirts for females who actually have a bust vs. those who don't!
If ladies' slacks can have a variety in length, the blouses should also have leeway.

As far as sizing in general goes, I've seen the same person wear one style dress in a size 10 and another in a size 16. Ridiculous!

It's the same over here in the UK. I am a size 16 and there is only one shop I can go in and buy something 'off the peg' that I know will fit exactly. A size 16 in any other high street shop just doesn't fit at all.

Here's a laugh for you.
My husband went shopping the other day and phoned me up to ask me what size jeans he needed. He hadn't a clue! When I told him 34 waist 32 leg he didn't believe me saying that he used to be a 30 waist. Well he did, I told him, back in 1982! You can guess who usually buys all his clothes.

Women's clothes have alway's been out of proportion. and it is now coming to something when a lot of shops near me DO NOT sell size 16 and upwards. if your lucky you MAY find a size 14 but generally the sizes start from a 6 (YES, A 6. Not many women would've fitted into a size 6 when they where 6 years old) and stop at a 12. I think all womens clothes should start from a size 6 and end in the higher ranger of 30 plus. Because it IS up to the individual how skinny or big they want to be. Either way they are still unhealthy so why can't we accommodate ALL sizes. Instead of regarding overweight people as unworthy of wearing the latest fashion. WE ALL should feel comfortable wearing what we like and nobody should feel uncomfortable going into any shop to buy clothes (man or women). Prada, Gucci. etc. Should think about business if they DID sell clothes for bigger people they would sell alot more outfits. Instead of constantly trying to fit in with the latest trend. Nobody should be discriminated for how they choose to look and what (if) they choose to eat. the day we can all (size 6 - 30's) walk into one single shop and feel comfortable and relaxed inside the store, knowing nobody's judging YOU, and you will walk out of the shop with a nice, new outfit (in the latest trend - and they haven't charged YOU twice as much just for an extra few inches of material around the waist, legs, bust. etc.). We will have all come a very, very long way from the self obsessed,media grabbing, people pleasers we see before us now. We are ALL unique sizes and 1 shop should accommodate each and everyone of us. individually.

Verify, I totally agree with your thoughts.

Since women (in the United States) are an average of size 16 or LARGER, the Fashion Gurus WOULD make BIG bucks if they would cater to women of all proportions.

It seems that most fashions for larger women tend to be either "Tent" or "Muumuu".

Vanity sizing sells clothes. If you wear a smaller size in a brand, you are more likely to purchase that brand. High priced clothing is more likely to have vanity sizes. Calvin Klein and The Gap are notorious for this. They now even have a size 00. Women want to feel thin so they buy a smaller size. It feels good and feeling good causes people to buy expensive clothes. It is all about making money. I know the difference in sizes. I would say the clothes now are labeled about 2 sizes lower than I used to wear. I still find that original Levi's don't lie. They have a real sized waist and a numbered length. I stay away from those.

One thing that really worries me is that I've started seeing stuff sized up to 6XXX...and that's just sad.

This year I've gotten up to the most I've ever weighed in my entire life (yes, working on it) and I've noticed that designers also seem to think that the larger a woman is, the shorter she is I've had a HECK of a time finding pants that are long enough...luckily I found a store that sells larger sizes in tall. It's very annoying - and definitely adds to my incentive to take the extra weight off and get back down to a reasonable size.

Hi Giz what exactly is the size 6XXX it's not a sizing we use over here.
Viv

Well Viv, I'm not sure of the measurements of a 6XXX, but it's VERY large. Like XL (extra large) times 6!

Thanks Giz,I get the picture !

Viv