What's Wrong with Women's Clothes
Feb. 28th, 2020 02:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithLots of things.
Among the worst is sizing. By this point it is basically meaningless. I can take a whole armload of clothes into a fitting room and 0 of them fit. It's one of several reasons I can't shop for clothes online except for extremely simple things like T-shirts.
But there's a simple fix for that issue, and people aren't thinking of it.
1) Require designers to print the measurements of each garment. So numbers will fit on tags, I propose:
TOPS / FULL-BODY GARMENTS
Bust at (width / distance below neckline)
Waist at (width / distance below neckline)
Hips at (width / distance below neckline)
Length (total distance between neckline and hemline)
BOTTOMS
Waist at (width / distance below neckline)
Hips at (width / distance below neckline)
Length (total distance between neckline and hemline)
2) Require that sizes be accurate, permitting a fault tolerance no more than 3/8 of the size difference. If it's a half-size bigger than the label says, it's fraud.
Designers could still print their own brand sizes (Small, Medium, Large or Aardvark, Windmill, Doorbell -- whatever) because it's convenient to have an approximate idea of range. But with physical measurements on the garments, people would have a better idea what would fit their body without needing to drag a tape measure to the store.
An alternative is expanding the use of bodyscanners, but that has rampant privacy issues in a civilization with no real privacy protections left. If the numbers are on the clothes and required by law to be accurate, then people can carry their measurements in the privacy of their own minds and just compare those to the tags.
EDIT 2/29/20: Various folks have suggested other measurements that determine wearability. There are many of these. They will not ALL fit on a tag, unless it is a full sheet of paper which is unfeasible. A scancode is useful only to people who carry a smartphone, which is not everyone. Hence, I suggest a summary of 3-4 measurements on the tag and the rest online or a separate display instore. For reference:
See detailed lists of measurements and how to take them for WOMEN, MEN, and CHILDREN. If you fit none of those categories or your body is quirky, consider browsing all of them to determine which measurements seem relevant to your needs.
Among the worst is sizing. By this point it is basically meaningless. I can take a whole armload of clothes into a fitting room and 0 of them fit. It's one of several reasons I can't shop for clothes online except for extremely simple things like T-shirts.
But there's a simple fix for that issue, and people aren't thinking of it.
1) Require designers to print the measurements of each garment. So numbers will fit on tags, I propose:
TOPS / FULL-BODY GARMENTS
Bust at (width / distance below neckline)
Waist at (width / distance below neckline)
Hips at (width / distance below neckline)
Length (total distance between neckline and hemline)
BOTTOMS
Waist at (width / distance below neckline)
Hips at (width / distance below neckline)
Length (total distance between neckline and hemline)
2) Require that sizes be accurate, permitting a fault tolerance no more than 3/8 of the size difference. If it's a half-size bigger than the label says, it's fraud.
Designers could still print their own brand sizes (Small, Medium, Large or Aardvark, Windmill, Doorbell -- whatever) because it's convenient to have an approximate idea of range. But with physical measurements on the garments, people would have a better idea what would fit their body without needing to drag a tape measure to the store.
An alternative is expanding the use of bodyscanners, but that has rampant privacy issues in a civilization with no real privacy protections left. If the numbers are on the clothes and required by law to be accurate, then people can carry their measurements in the privacy of their own minds and just compare those to the tags.
EDIT 2/29/20: Various folks have suggested other measurements that determine wearability. There are many of these. They will not ALL fit on a tag, unless it is a full sheet of paper which is unfeasible. A scancode is useful only to people who carry a smartphone, which is not everyone. Hence, I suggest a summary of 3-4 measurements on the tag and the rest online or a separate display instore. For reference:
See detailed lists of measurements and how to take them for WOMEN, MEN, and CHILDREN. If you fit none of those categories or your body is quirky, consider browsing all of them to determine which measurements seem relevant to your needs.
Thoughts
Date: 2020-03-01 11:05 am (UTC)We can hope. But so many people seem to prefer online shopping for clothes. I can hardly imagine it. Perhaps they have extremely standard bodies and tastes. This seems improbable since manufacturers don't actually make clothes sized for what is now a majority of women, but whatever.
>> Some things like clothes and fabric are better bought in person <<
I agree.
>> (although I keep wanting to see a fabric store with sample swatches like they do for wallpaper).<<
I have seen those.
>>About 75% of clothes I can eliminate without trying them on (must be natural fabric, must have sleeves/long legs/go to mid-calf, with skirts, I need to be able to take long strides, plus a specific range of colors).<<
I eliminate almost everything. It's getting harder and harder to find anything even worth trying on, because natural fabric is rarer and rarer. Most synthetics feel bad to me. And the few I like -- well, this fall I bought several things because they were soft and fuzzy, only to discover that they shed horrendously. Not only is that bad for the environment, it means they won't last very long. >_<
>>I buy at thrift stores, mostly.<<
Yeah, I like those too.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-03-02 05:10 am (UTC)I'd really love one where you could order sample swatches (ie these are our Fair Trade wool knits) before ordering large expensive pieces of fabric.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2020-03-02 07:10 am (UTC)8x8" swatches of some fabrics
16x9cm swatches of all fabrics
Free swatch kit
Fair trade swatches but does not give size
Cheap swatch books by fabric type
Fair trade swatch bundles by fabric type, but expensive