Sarahel's Semiotics 4U

but it isn't as if men can wear a-line dresses ... well, they could but ...

http://www.comic-mint.com/media/client/homer-mumu-bedroom-E1728_sml.jpg

Men's pants are sized consistently based on measurements,

ALL I HAVE TO SAY AT LOL ALREADY DIDN'T READ REST OF THREAD

GO MEASURE ANY GENDER'S PAIR OF PANTS THAT AREN'T MADE IN FRANCE, ITALY OR JAPAN AND SEE HOW THEY COMPARE TO THE LABELED SIZE, THIS ISSUE IS NOT UNIQUE TO WOMENSWEAR

but...semiotics...

yes, but the sizes refer to actual measurements, one can say, "These are supposed to be 34 inch waist pants, I have measured my waist and it is 34 inches, these pants do not fit, thus these pants are wrong."

shrink-to-fit, ding dongs

No mass-manufactured item will ever fit perfectly on anyone but that lucky person who is 'average' in every variable measurement and even then, if it's poorly done, it will still look shitty. I just mean that in the complicated process of draping two-dimensional plane around a three-dimensional body, there are added challenges, even if you factor out societal and gender expectations, when clothing women.

I generally have to get all my suits tailored to some degree or another and there are certain brands which are simply not cut for me.

my legs are too long for me

before i got a paunch it was very hard for me - a tall and, at the time, slim male - to find trousers that fit. 28" waist 34" inside leg is difficult.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vBiL4nSwNBU/SEl5Rxceg9I/AAAAAAAAADQ/hkiQIATg27A/s320/hostess_ding_dongs_300w.jpg

or

http://www.candyfavorites.com/pi/hostess-ho-hos.jpg

names are onomatopoeic representations of sound effects

The Man Who Was Shorter Than Himself

There was a man two inches shorter than himself
Who always kept getting stuck in the sidewalk;
And when the curious townsmen came
To yank his arms and crush his hat,
He'd spit in the eye of the lean,
and steal the wallets off the fat.

I guess what I'm saying, is don't trust the size marked, it varies from brand to brand and even sometimes within and you have to see how it fits.

I also wonder at your pocket/purse dynamic. I think it may be the other way around. At present, woomen have purses so why have ungainly bulges and folds in their clothing when they mostly won't put anything in there so as not to ruin the line? You could wonder why there is still a vestigial style for faux pockets, perhaps, or why women want to look sexy, but I can understand why, if they're going to carry a purs, they don't want real pockets. Otoh, I have seen quite a few summer dresses w/functional pockets this year.

this isn't really semiotics 4u anymore btw, this is like every ILS thread ever

yes, but the sizes refer to actual measurements, one can say, "These are supposed to be 34 inch waist pants, I have measured my waist and it is 34 inches, these pants do not fit, thus these pants are wrong."

― free jazz and mumia (sarahel),

AROUND 25 YEARS AGO, CLOTHING MANUFACTURERS BEGAN "VANITY SIZING". THIS IS WHY I SAY GO MEASURE A GARMENT AND COMPARE TO THE LABEL SIZE. I DON'T TYPE IN ALL CAPS JUST FOR FUN. LOL

THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD ABOUT VANITY SIZING TBH

Here is an interesting series of articles about how fit models work in the womens' clothing industry, which lends some support to sarahel's theories re: women's pants:
http://theprettyyear.com/2009/03/10/size-chart-woes/
http://theprettyyear.com/2009/03/17/size-chart-woes-part-ii/
http://theprettyyear.com/2009/03/18/size-chart-woes-part-iii-revenge-of-the-stitch/

I just have a problem with purses ... I'd end up forgetting them on public transport or in the corner at a club or something ... it's something else to keep tabs on when you're in a public place. I prefer to keep everything in pockets -- fortunately, most of the year I can wear a jacket or sweatshirt and keep things in there, but when it gets hot (like it was the past two days), it's too warm for a jacket or sweatshirt, and the pants pockets problem rears its head.

friend of mine who interned for some semi-up and coming designer last summer claimed that the guy (who only wore cargo shorts) didn't really like the idea of "fat ppl" wearing his clothes and used a fit model who was definitely too small and the clothes were all about six sizes (european) than they claimed they were. Also they just measure one person who is a real person and usually a quite skinny model whose proportions are not v. representative fyi and then add two inches to the measurements to go up each size

i don't like them either, they're a real hindrance and i hate hindrances. but i like carrying everything i own with me like a bag lady so life is hard w/o some type of bag xp

xp ha! Your story reminds me of ikea furniture -- it always seems to me that whoever designs it doesn't want people with large quantities of stuff using it. Maybe it's just the shelves ...

A lot of designers don't like the idea of fat people wearing their clothes, which is a bummer, because as a fat lady with discretionary income, I would really like to spend it on some clothes that don't look like they have been puked on by a bedazzler. Also, yes, just grading a pattern up uniformly around is pretty common, so that a size 18W blouse, for example, is cut for a giant rectangular person (and some women are shaped like giant rectangles, so this is good for them) instead someone with boobs and a waist and hips, etc. This is really a whole separate discussion than sarahel's semiotic pants, though. xp

You can tell when a manufacturer does that uniform grading thing if their larger sized shirts have like giant arm and neck holes.

not just common, i'm pretty sure this is HOW ITS DONE

like this guy was high end

Jenny speaks the truth! A while back, I was talking to a friend of mine, who I consider fairly slim, but like me, we are both pretty ample in the posterior. Both of us are not tall, and we will buy larger women's shorts that on us look like capri pants.

Inadequacy -- compared to men's pants - which are designated by quantitative measurements, women's pants, are sized with an arbitrary number with the smallest, and culturally most desirable, being a "0" -- null

BOTH MEN AND WOMENS CLOTHING MADE FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS HAS DEVIATED FROM THE STANDARD SIZING (AKA VANITY SIZING) WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DOMESTIC COUTURE DESIGN HOUSES OR FOREIGN IMPORTS SUCH AS ZARA, H&M OR UNIQLO (ALTHOUGH THESE RETAILERS HAVE GOTTEN SMART AND HAVE BEGAN RELABELING GARMENTS FOR USA EG: M -> L, L->XL).

GO FIND YOUR BF'S FAVORITE PAIR OF PANTS AND MEASURE THE WAIST AND COMPARE TO THE LABEL. EVERYONE WANTS TO BE TALLER AND SKINNIER THAN THEY REALLY ARE, IT IS NOT A WOMEN'S CLOTHING ISSUE EXCLUSIVELY, ALTHOUGH I DO FEEL YA W/R/T USA WOMENSWEAR SIZING ALTHOUGH THAT'S BEEN A PROBLEM FOR MANY DECADES.

I also wonder at your pocket/purse dynamic. I think it may be the other way around. At present, woomen have purses so why have ungainly bulges and folds in their clothing when they mostly won't put anything in there so as not to ruin the line? You could wonder why there is still a vestigial style for faux pockets, perhaps, or why women want to look sexy, but I can understand why, if they're going to carry a purs, they don't want real pockets. Otoh, I have seen quite a few summer dresses w/functional pockets this year.

― Le présent se dégrade, d'abord en histoire, puis en (Michael White), Tuesday, August 11, 2009 3:31 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this doesn't really show that it's the other way around. unless i am not understanding. women are carrying purses ----> let's design clothes based on that assumption, and that's good because we won't "ruin the line" (and who cares if your clothes are not "functional") -----> our clothes don't have pockets ------> that's ok because you can put stuff in your purse. i mean what sarahel said still holds. it goes in a circle.

my bf pretty exclusively wears work pants (dickies, carhartts, etc.) ... do they vanity size those, too?

steve shasta i think u are missing the point, arbitrary as men's clothing sizes may be, they at least imply a relatiotionship with an actual measurement, 32 in a men's trousers actually means the waist is 32 inches, yeah it is usually bollocks but the relationship between sign and signified is pretty clear cut, wtf is size six supposed to mean, its more abstract and therefore invents its own connotations in relationship to women's bodies without anything as formal as a measurement it seems

^ yes. men's clothes doesn't have a 0, for example. the fact that both have vanity sizing just means both want to be smaller than they are, which is another (related) problem.

if you go to pull and bear in ireland they don't do size small, the label says Spain: M Ireland : S or Spain: L Ireland M.

hang on, can we get back to that 'false choice' thing, because much as I <3 debord, deleuze &c &c, and much as that quote is OTM re: aspirational marketing, false lifestyle dichotomies and other such symbiotic competitive ventures, I would argue that fundamentally instinctive entertainments such as sport, and necessary civic arbitrations such as elections, are somewhat above the insidious corporate spectacle being addressed by debord. supporting a sports team is not like choosing a piece of clothing or a new kitchen. it comes much more naturally; it is tribal, and is not suggested so much as implored. as for voting in an election, the falseness of the choice depends on what information is available, and how trustworthy it is.

duped by "democracy"

PLAXICO I THINK YOU'RE ACTUALLY MISSING THE POINT TBF

MEN DON'T WEAR TOP/BOTTOM CLOTHING (EXCEPT FOR READY TO WEAR SUITS)

YOU CAN GOOGLE WOMENSWEAR SIZING TO LEARN THE HISTORY, IT'S NOT LIKE AN UNTAILORED PRET-A-PORTER CLOTHING IS SOMETHING BRAND NEW.

basically i was feeling a little harshed on, because i am a massive sports fan, and am trying to wriggle out of a poststructuralist hole that cannot be wriggled out of

i am "privileging" shasta's industry experience over unfocused attempts at uncovering semiotic "meaning" sorry guys!!

STEVE SHASTA I THINK WE'RE ON DIFFERENT CONTINENTS WITH DIFFERENT CLOTHES SIZING KEYS SO MAYBE THAT IT WHY WE KEEP GETTING OUR WIRES CROSSED BECAUSE I NO LONGER HAVE ONE CLUE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TBH

one can still be esoteric and nomadic with one's appreciation OF competitive sport as a whole, by having an overall interest in it, even if one focuses on the tribal element when forced to pick a side or when one's appointed tribe is stirred into action

see thread title tbqf elmo

the fact that competitive sports are fundamentally instinctive doesn't mean they can't be part of an insidious corporate spectacle
wide availability of trustworthy information doesn't mean the 'choice' is not false

How are men's clothes sized in Ireland, plaxico?

i like sports btw. elections not so much.

You don't have to pick a football team or vote, though, whereas you kind DO have to wear clothes, especially if, like sarahel, you have to work.

ALL IM SAYIN IS APPLES AND ORANGES TO COMPARE WOMENSWEAR AND MENSWEAR SIZING. WOMENS SIZING NEEDS TO BE 3D AND MENS DOESNT. A LOT OF FALSEHOODS IN THE OP. THE REAL ISSUE IS VANITY SIZING WHICH IS GENDER-NEUTRAL.

You don't have to pick a football team or vote, though

true

yes i saw that, thanks. now explain to me how a handbag or purse is really a baby? i mean using one patriarchal stereotype as a "cause" of other examples of sexism isn't really a methodology, is it?

How are men's clothes sized in Ireland, plaxico?

― Le présent se dégrade, d'abord en histoire, puis en (Michael White), Tuesday, August 11, 2009 9:12 PM (1 minute ago)

turns out its the same

it's not really a baby

the insidious corporate spectacle is not fundamental to competitive sports, however. in many cases it has hijacked top-level competitive sports but it is by no means intrinsic throughout. most discerning sports fans see through the BS and appreciate the elegance of the sport at all levels, not just the summit.

it depends on what one is choosing. if one is choosing a team to support, criteria can be drawn from a variety of sources, only the crudest ones spectacular. sentiment and proximity are generally the key factors. if one is choosing to follow competitive sports as a whole, then of course a spectacle is being sought, but it is a self-explanatory, non-corporate spectacle. the razzle-dazzle is merely a means of perpetuating false narratives of historical success and consistent glory, which I generally don't give a stuff about.

the same for elections. if one knows that a candidate will bring in the death penalty, and one won't, then the choice on those grounds is surely not false.

i like sports and not elections too fwiw although if we had better choices i would like elections more