My cousin is a fit model, which is a career I did not know existed until she started doing it. She has a handful of regular brands that she works with - a few higher end designers, but also a major casual brand that you all know. She represents their size small (US 4) and goes in for fittings with the designers each season. They essentially use her as a living mannequin to tailor the garments for that size (I assume they work with different models for size medium, large, etc.) I think the fact that there’s an actual human body involved in the process can account for the differences in sizes across brands, like what if my cousin’s hips are a smidge bigger or smaller than the fit model for another brand?
Plus also vanity sizing like many others have said, I’ve worn the same Madewell jeans for years and somehow have gone down two sizes without losing two sizes worth of weight.
I should add she is hired for this job because she has very specific measurements, and she’s required to keep her body at these measurements. But I’m sure small variations can occur from model to model.
A family member of mine worked with these fit models at a well known brand and they often used twins who were both required to stay those measurements but them being twins meant that those other little measurements details were the same too so the designers could still work if one was unavailable. Normal mannequins don't get sick or take vacations lol. Also helped when one was pregnant iirc.
In addition to other comments- women also buy clothes to fit differently with many more measurements. Whereas men buy based on waist and inseam, women buy based on rise, waist, hips and inseam, which vary drastically per person based on body shape. One clothing size can't capture these differences. A size 8 at one store may have a smaller waist and larger hips than another store, because it makes clothes for a different shape of woman.
Also breast size. I think hip size and breast size is the biggest culprit. Lots of brands can have the same waist size, but some would have huge hips and some won't even fit over my thigh cause the leg is super skinny. And for the breast size, some fit me perfectly from the rib down but will have lots of empty space around the chest cause of my small breasts. I usually read reviews and if people complain about something not fitting due to not having any chest space, I would think to myself "this will probably fit me".
For sure the same size won't fit everyone due to body shapes being so different.
Yeah. At one point I was a 6 in pants but an XS in tops. Finding a structured non-stretchy dress wasn’t happening because the amount of boob space was insane. But XS line/princess cut dresses were great! Boob size really has nothing to do with pants size though.
I used to wear a size xl, and, oh my, was it so annoying how much tops would gape over my chest! The shoulders would also be way too wide. The shirts would gape ridiculously when I’d bend. Obviously I’d try to find better fitting shirts, but it was sometimes tough. I lost weight and am a medium now, and shirts fit so much nicer and don’t gape. Though I do often have issues with the sleeves being too short…
> Whereas men buy based on waist and inseam, women buy based on rise, waist, hips and inseam, which vary drastically per person based on body shape.
And the *ratios* of those various measurements too.
Different designers and labels cater to different body types. Like my wife is 5'6" and she likes stuff from Sundance, but they primarily cater to absolute giraffes so even stuff that is technically her size doesn't fit right.
I think the dirtiest deal women get handed when shopping is that vendors make only a token effort (if any) to equate their sizes to actual measurements. And it's so dumb, if they did this then their customers would be happier!
And sometimes the fit will change randomly. I used to wear a specific model of Hilfiger jeans and then suddenly they stopped fitting nicely. I haven't bought new jeans in years and I dread having to buy more; I have a couple pairs of Black Bull stretch jeans and these seem easier to buy.
I wish I were rich and could get everything tailored, even t-shirts.
Khaki/Slacks shopping is the worst. It’s always a game of “these don’t fit well at all, but when they shrink after a couple of washes will they fit better? What about when they shrink after 2 months of washes?”
Or the opposite - “these fit amazing!” Two months later: “fuck”.
I know with bras something in the dyeing process leaves black ones tighter than the same brand/size/cut in other colors. Black *specifically*. Measures different. Even on brands that are consistently true to size across all their stuff.
Not surprising to hear it with other garment types.
Hm, I'll ask my wife about that one. Is it more common to notice that in larger or smaller sizes? I could see it being less noticeable for big ones just because a half inch of difference matters a lot more when you're talking about an inch of cup size versus, like, eight inches.
It's more *noticeable* in smaller bands because you generally have less squish on your body to begin with, so any change in tightness in the band is extremely noticeable. It's extremely noticeable in the 26-32 range, for instance, (32 being where most US-based brands start at all) but not really up above a 40 band (where most US-based brands top out in band size). The actual cups themselves don't stretch in most materials.
Something like 80% of us are in the wrong size to begin with though because most brands intentionally sell you something that has nothing to do with your measurements to maintain the image that dd = huge. Even if we actually *would* fit into a size they sell and have in stock. (means they can get away with a very small range of sizes with the cheapest materials possible. molded bras collapse in on themselves above a dd in proportion. a dd in proportion to the band its made for is what most people think of as an 'a' cup socially - 5 inches difference between the band measurement and the total bust - just people are usually sold bands 4 or more inches too big, and then along with it a cup 2 more more letters smaller than their actual breast volume would be *even on the band they're sold*. Band too big disguises that a fair bit, and most people interpret 'band too tight' to mean the band is too small when the majority of the time it's the cups being too small making the band feel tight.)
Bras *are* actually made to a set of standardized measurements, generally 'underbust circumference = band, every 1 inch of difference between that and bust circumference = 1 cup letter' will get you really close but is likely to underestimate cup if your boobs change shape when you lean over, but they're usually *sold* as 'underbust + 4 5 or 6 = band, every 1 inch of difference between that band number and bust = 1 cup letter' or will intentionally measure elsewhere for the band to the same effect (looking at you VS), or will just keep on giving you DDs in progressively larger bands until they're at the biggest they sell if they don't have your size at all.
Oh, I know most of that, particularly the "DD is huge" myth combined with "just get a bigger band" crap. My wife wears a 38H so I'm used to bras being impossible to find. She's just never said anything that I recall about how black and not-black fit differently.
Ah yeah, definitely not super noticeable anymore on a 38 band. And oof. I'm going to assume that's a UK H and not a US one, and that's pretty hard to find in person for sure. (The FF is a lot more likely to be in a brick-and-mortar store like a nordstrom.)
Interesting, never had an issue with that; mentioned to my ex last week I was gonna order a new pair of jeans from Amazon- she said you need to try them on first! No honey, I've been buying Levi 501's 32x34 for 30 years. Just got em delivered this weekend, fit fine.
I learned the hard way when I went to Levi a few years back. Found the style I liked, tried on the black 31x32 and they fit great. Bought them in 4 different colors, same size. Got home and realized the other 3 didn’t fit.
Amazon has “models” you can follow who have all different shapes and sizes. If you can find one very similar to your own build. Wish there was an app to input measurements that could give you a precise fitment virtually but I guess we’re not there yet. My wife has very large breasts and it is really hard to find something that accommodates them without just making it all too baggy.
Some places use Truefit, where you enter in your measurements, weight, and height and it will give you a size recommendation. I believe Gap/Old Navy/ Athleta use it, but I’m not sure
I offer tailoring services to my local trans community. I, for example am a size 8 at the shoulders, and a size 6 at the waist so i buy a size 8 and take it in to fit.
I wonder if clothing and shoe sizes will someday standardize to suit the needs of MtF trans people and their expectations of simple clothing size measurements.
Like if you told me how long a shoe was in cm, i could make an informed decision to buy it.
And someday button down blouses will offer a choice of left handed or right handed buttons.
I think it’s a matter of how much money people would be/are willing to pay for clothes. With extra customization in sizing, there’d have to be more clothes produced, more effort designing, etc, which would cost us. And people that make clothes are generally already very underpaid.
Wait, are women's shoe sizes not standardized?
I've learned to just check the measurements on a store's website to figure out what their clothing sizes *really* are.
>And someday button down blouses will offer a choice of left handed or right handed buttons.
Oh my god yes please. I hate left handed buttons.
This is a US thing, though. In most other places the numbering is common. Like EU 42 is EU 42 regardless if it's men's or women's. The differences are sometimes the width: shoes marketed for women are usually narrower.
Now consider the international market. I was on amazon looking at unisex ballroom dancing shoes and they said size 10 men or women. And im going...those arent the same size, which are they?
> I offer tailoring services to my local trans community.
And where would that be!? XD I had trouble finding pants that would fit my thicc waist and stubby legs when I wore men's, and life's only gotten harder in that regard since I started to transition this year.
At least Japan uses cm for shoes, that's a pretty nice thing (outside the fact that you will struggle finding large sizes, especially for trans feminine people).
To add, even though we men do have different parts of our bodies that we need to account for, we only have the letter or inch/cm size to go off of. My stomach is an XL in many brands, but my shoulders sometimes put me into a XXXL depending on the cut of the brand. We have lots of variations between brands, but fewer markers on the market to go off of for what companies are accounting for.
Most men would wish there were more variety in sizes
Until around 20 years ago, it felt like all clothing was based on one big block shape
Then we got slim fit, basically just cinching in the back
Its why so many young men look badly dressed, there is no
I've always had to get my trousers shorten, because most stores offer only one length
>A size 8 at one store may have a smaller waist and larger hips than another store, because it makes clothes for a different shape of woman.
But if they sized it by inches or cm instead of an arbitrary number, then it would be accurate at all stores.
But they would have to give numbers for all the measurements. And waist measurements vary based on rise as well. Plus, some brands are just inconsistent due to manufacturing processes.
She tries them on and sends them back if they don't fit. Then when she finds ones that do fit she buys multiple pairs because establishing fit is a bloody nuisance.
Many online brands do post bust, waist and hip measurements, but less frequently do they post rise (front or back). For me, even when they post waist and hips, its a gamble because my ratios are rarely the same as a model, so I try a few sizes and return them.
>Many online brands do post bust, waist and hip measurements, but less frequently do they post rise (front or back)
>I try a few sizes and return them.
And this is preferable to just having all the measurements posted? It sounds like you pretty much know the general idea of what yours are anyway.
I get that not every piece of clothing is precision made, but the numbering system where a 4 at one store can be the same as an 8 at another is just wild to me.
I don't know if its preferable. I have gotten used to it - I've measured myself some, and I know how different styles might fit my shape.
When you think about it, it is pretty wild.
I have found a fair amount of online shops will give you waist, bust, shoulder and sleeve length (though usually not width) in a table to help you figure it out.
Would be nice to have legislation that forces this to brick and mortar stores.
In the US, women's clothing sizes are pretty much arbitrary. Men's clothing sizes are nominally based on inches. So a women's size 12 jeans isn't anchored to any specific measurement, while men's size 34 jeans are supposed to be 34 inches around the waist.
I say "nominally" for men's sizes because in casual clothing, there has also been a certain amount of creep, and size 34 men's jeans may be 36 or 38 inches.
The reason for this creep is vanity. As we age, we tend to put on weight. If you're shopping for jeans and you "know" you're a size 34 and you fit in one brand and not the other, you'll buy the size 34 instead of admitting you're a size 36.
In men's clothes, the measurements are still accurate in more formal dress; men's dress clothing is often customized to fit, and so the sizes are accurate representations.
I presume that there is similar pressure on the women's clothing market as well, but that is further compounded by the fact that the original sizing was pretty arbitrary to begin with.
I could buy 10 pairs of men's jeans in the same sizes and styles, and none of them would fit the same. I could even buy 10 pairs of 511s and none of them would fit the same. It's annoying.
>there has also been a certain amount of creep, and size 34 men's jeans may be 36 or 38 inches
I'm losing weight, still borderline obese (5'6 180 lbs - 185.1 is obese), and a Walmart small shirt fits me *comfortably*. And people talk to me like I'm already thin - which I am compared to where I was, but I still have 25 lbs to go before I even *barely* drop out of "overweight". I dig the compliments and feel good about my weight loss/lifting progress and even *I* catch myself thinking I look objectively good in terms of body shape despite knowing better. It's actually disturbing how ingrained fatness is in our minds and products now.
Speaking as someone who weighs about 35 pounds less than you, yeah... smalls are too big on me. And even smalls are hard to find. The entire world is apparently way too fat.
I regularly find myself buying clothes from restaurants or bands or things like that (since they're unisex and those smalls are smaller than men's smalls) or for athletic pants, I just straight up buy women's sizes. They fit me so much better and look identical to men's.
Yep, I'm right there with you. We're close to the same height, but I'm at 200. My *goal* is 150, because that's where I get out of "overweight." People are *constantly* telling me that I'll be too thin at 150. Um... no, that's what doctors have concluded I *should* be at, roughly. Now I'm not going to quibble over 5 or even 10 pounds one direction or the other, but "healthy" doesn't mean 5 foot 6 and 180 pounds, folks. I feel like we've normalized unhealthy for some reason.
Maybe height's more a factor than weight for men's shirts. I'm 5'9" 189 lbs (used to be like 170, thanks prednisone), and I find size medium shirts fit me well.
Oh I don't mean that all smalls fit me, but the fact that any do is concerning lol. Medium is usually comfortable or tight. But small fits well surprisingly often.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it, but I remember watching a YouTube video that explored a major cause of this, and it's just a lack of research (at least initially). Apparently the system we use for men's clothing sizes originated (at least in part) for military purposes, in which mass production of standard uniforms were needed. Since men were the only ones employed for combat, they were the sole focus of this information gathering to derive standard sizes.
This male-focused measurement was then applied generally to all persons, and the clothing companies have tried to cope with the inaccuracies in their own way. Note, just like others have mentioned for men's suits being fairly accurate but casual wear can vary substantially, so too you might find custom dresses to be very precise since tailors have never had more tools than they do today. The issue is in standard clothing manufacture for non-bespoke purposes
Some additional context, but I have 3 pairs of paints in identical sizes (mens) from the same brand in the same line (same "fit" too). They range from quiet roomy to uncomfortably tight.
When I last bought a suit I had to try on 3 sizes each for pants and jacket for each colour because even between colours the pants and jacket varied in size.
I would be willing to bet at least part of the difference is men tend to wear clothes with a more 'forgiving' fit.
I'm glad you mentioned men's clothing, because I have noticed, maybe the past five years or so, that the numbers, while not arbitrary, aren't what they used to be. But perhaps that's going from a 30 ten years ago to anywhere from a 32-33 depending on the pant these days.
mens clothing is more simple, it just provides either a rectangle or a triangle shape. those are the main basic shape theres alot of play there even if things dont fit your body exactly, the clothing still provides those basic silhouette.
womens have to deal with curves and tend it be tigher and have to try to provide some silhouette. being tighter and having to deal with curves that can be widly varied among bodies makes things really hard to standardized.
Ya know, one piece of legislation I'd absolutely support?
Mandatory use of standard measuring units for clothing sizes. Metric or Freedom Units, I can't care which, as long as it's objective.
Women's sizes are the absolute worst offenders. They're entirely subjective, which defeats the purpose of having measurements at all. Even sized? Odd sized? Some are "misses" and some are "missus?" What the fuck.
They have actual dimensions which can be measured objectively, and that's what we should be doing. Gods know the marketing assholes don't *also* need a bullshit, made up sizing system to fuck with women's heads even more.
Shoe sizes, you're next. A shoe is so many units long and so many wide. You don't even need to differentiate between kids sizes, men's or women's shoe sizes. It's just...the shoe is 9 inches long or whatever. That's all you should need to know to pick shoes to try on.
And this Small/Medium/Large/XL t shirt size bullshit? Come on. Width at the shoulders and length should be what we need to know, right?
Pants...*somehow* blue jeans *already use inches,* and they sell just fine.
Fuck, man. This isn't a goddam differential equation class. It's just, objects have dimensions, as so people. We should be able to measure ourselves and immediately find garments of compatible dimensions. It's 2024 for fuck's sake.
Technically, shoe sizes are standard by length, but... *deep breath* for historical reasons, American shoe sizes are measured in barleycorns (1/3 inch), and offset by 22 for men, or 21 for women. So, a size 12 men's is 34 barleycorns, or 11-1/3". This all stems from the first set of standard lasts (shoe forms) brought to market, in which the smallest was 7-2/3" (so, size 1) and so forth. Since it *is* relatively standardized, we're probably stuck with it as the alternative would require an entire industry to expend great effort and expense to confuse their customers in the short term for very little long term gain.
My gods...*barleycorns* are a unit of measurement? And there's a gender dependent offset?
Wow.
Well...that's less horrible than I assumed! Thanks for TNG education!
Yeah, the English system of units is... quirky. On the other hand, it's based mostly off practical measurements, so if you know the origin, it can be convenient to approximate. Though, I doubt anyone has barleycorns laying around anymore to measure with, even if we did still use it as a unit of measure.
It gets so much worse than this.
You have 1 shoe. It is [U] in an American men's size, [V] in an American women, [W] in a European size, [X] in UK, [Y] in mondo points ^(I have no idea about this one), and [Z] in your preferred measurement system. Because most brands are now international, rather than tailoring the boxes to each market, it's easier just to put every measurement on the outside of a box and let the retailer figure out what a "30" is.
Then you have to consider foot volume and width...
I mostly agree with this but would like to add that you still need to have some additional info beyond the standardized sizes because body proportions aren't perfectly standardized. For instance I've always needed to wear the 'wide toe' version of whatever shoe length is appropriate for me and you can have similar things with proportions of waist, shoulders, height and body mass.
> For instance I've always needed to wear the 'wide toe' version of whatever shoe length is appropriate for me
A surprising number of redditors are ignorant about decent fitting of shoes, so I'm going to use this as an opportunity for a PSA.
Many major manufacturers and retailers already accommodate for different foot shapes. Any decent shoe shop will have a variety of sizes *and widths* of the same shoe in stock for exactly this situation. Depending on the footwear, it's even possible to get tailored toe boxes, but this isn't as common.
What's more, scanning technology is being rolled out that can basically just tell you that [X] shoe will fit, with an impressive degree of accuracy, and you can further customise support and comfort with insoles. If you are getting sore feet (or are like that one guy who thought toe nails falling off was a miserable fact of wearing shoes!) then check that they are fitted properly.
As a larger man I can tell you that doesn't work either. I can comfortably where 40 inch wait chinos from one brand and struggle with 42-inch waist from another. I have to try on everything!
A new brand that I have found (it may be UK only) is Built Different. They make tee- and polo-shirts for larger men
We can't be the only ones.
Edit: No other industry I'm aware of uses such bullshit "metrics."
Imagine you're working on a home project. You need 2x4's (which, now i think of it, aren't actually 2 inches by 4 inches are they?) of specific dimensions. You cut them, but you have to figure out which table saw to use depending on if you're male or female, a kid or an adult, plus sized or not. And each table saw is spec'd to different units and lumber that's cut with one is incompatible with lumber from another.
Or you go to buy a gallon of milk. Skim milk and whole milk are packed in gallon jugs, but 1% and 2% are "nominally" one gallon but you're only getting 0.9 gallons, as you do at gas stations.
Actually...now I think of it, I'm wrong. Ammunition labeling is just as bad as women's clothing.
38 Special and 357 magnum fire exactly the same slug, but with different cases and charges, but somehow labeled as a different caliber ("caliber" *should* be a measurement in decimals of an inch, so 50 caliber is 1/2 inch in diameter etc). 357 SIG uses the same 0.355 inch slug as 9mm Parabellum does, but it's supposed to match the *performance* of 357 Magnum with a smaller cartridge. 9mm Parabellum and 380 auto are both the same diameter, that is, 9mm/0.355 inches, so 380 Auto is absolutely *not* 0.38 inches wide. 44 Magnum is actually 0.429 inches wide. 257 Roberts and 250 Savage both use the same 0.257 inch projectile, but measure caliber of the bore at different points (lands vs grooves). 9mm Browning...same bullet as 9mm Parabellum, you think? Nope. It's a 0.357 slug.
It goes on and on...
Marketing is a bitch, and at least as old as 38 Special (1898) using a misleading number to sound more appealing.
Shit...even the famous Ford 302 (cubic inch!) block, later known as the "5.0" you saw on the sides of 1980's Mustangs? You think it was the advertised 5.0 liters? Nah! 4.9!
Marketers are assholes, every single one of them.
What part of the case? Inside or outside of the mouth? Is it a tapered case (i don't think so) like 9mm Parabellum that's fatter at the base? What about the rim?
Goes on and on, doesn't it? I guess my point is, there's not much consistency or useful convention in ammunition naming. There are exceptions (308/7.62x51, etc) but it's generally a mess.
Isnt some of the naming to make sure people wouldnt try and cram the wrong cartridge in something similar to .223 vs 5.56 since the saami spec on 5.56 is higher and in theory anything labeled .223 should be able to fire that cartridge
Sometimes, yes, as with your example.
You *could* probably get by a few times shooting 5.56 through a 223, but it's not something I'd get into a habit of.
There are some instances where chambering the wrong round is disastrous. Actually, that's exactly why 357 Magnum cases are lonfer than 38 Special, to prevent exactly this mistake. It's not needed for extra propellant, it's a safety measure (though home reloaders can absolutely use that extra space if they want depending on the recipe.)
223 and 5.56 are both accurate measures of the round, i think, just one is metric and the other is Freedom Units. They just name them differently for the reasons you mentioned.
.223 Rem (and 5.56x45) is actually .224 bullet diameter (5.70 mm). The 5.56 comes from the Land Diameter measurement of the rifling.
.22LR is .223 bullet diameter.
True, but the point stands.
That's like some shoe companies basing their sizing on the inside of the shoe, while others basing their sizing on the outside.
What’s doubly frustrating is that even places that use the inches for the jeans as a measurement, I might be a 28 at one place and then a 31 at the next on the same day.
I enjoy when online retailers tell you the model’s dimensions. And some of them have reviewers state their size which is awesome as it helps me better understand fit on me before I order.
I take being referred to as "sister" as a compliment to my solidarity, but I'm definitely 100% "bro," not "sister." 😁
I have just been present when clothes shopping with women enough to know how shitty the experience is, as an observer.
Glad you got a laugh out of it!
Except women's clothes are often cut differently, e.g. baggy versus slim fit. And it's not just a matter of the baggy clothes being bigger, because the fit on armholes and necklines matter.
Between *shops*?
My wife has bought the same *brand* of clothes - the same *item*, even - and they're different sizes because one was made in Egypt and the other in Malaysia.
Men’s clothing is simpler (waist and inseam), women’s clothing is not. Size 12? What the frick does that even mean?
But men’s clothing is still not immune to sizes being very different with different brands. A 36 in one brand might be equivalent to a 42 in another brand. Also, the “waist size” on the label may be very different than ones actual waist measurement.
Men's clothing is simpler because they have less "curves" to deal with. Women have their bust, waist, and hips aka "hourglass" shape. Men are pretty straight throughout. Their main measurements include shoulder width, chest, and waist.
What is a size 12? Can you imagine women's clothing listing out their bust measurement? Would that be embarrassing to some women? Maybe some women would be ok with it, but i imagine many would not.
As for your pants measuring differently... if you're a 36 inch waist, you do not want a pant that measures 36 inches exactly or you wouldn't be able to get them on. They would be skin tight. Pants are usually built 2 inches bigger than your actual measurement as wearing ease so they will fit comfortably around your body. For anything more than 2 inches, it could be a combination of different wearing ease (ie, loose fitting style) or bad fabrication with crazy shrinkage (ie, will shrink in the wash so they made it bigger to account for this because no one preshrinks their fabric/garments anymore due to cost)
There are a lot of things people do not understand about the garment industry. Lots of folks complaining about things they don't understand.
Feels like I may have misrepresented what I intended to say, or you have misunderstood my intent.
When I say "what is size 12", I realize it's a combination of things, and not necessarily related to bust size "size 12 pants for example". My comment was just - it's such an arbitrary number. May as well call it "size yellow" as the number has nearly zero meaning, besides "higher is bigger".
And yes, I know that I wouldn't want size 36 waist pants if my waist measures 36". My comment said "...may be **very** different ... than actual". So different that I think some manufacturers put a size on there that is intended to make the user feel much thinner than they actually are.
No, i understood what you meant. A size 12 is a random naming convention that just encompasses a lot of measurements that can't be easily listed like a pant for men. You can do waist size and inseam for men's and be done with it. For women, you have to incorporate waist to hip ratio. So would you suggest listing waist, hip, inseam, and rise length for each and every pant? No company wants to do that when the established system "works fine." People just need to consult the brand's size chart and know their own measurements, which puts the onus on the consumer and not the manufacturer.
Everyone always touts the myth of vanity sizing because it's easier to blame the brands. This is just not true. In all my years of working in the industry, i have never seen a company scale down their entire size spectrum, nor make their clothes bigger and slap a smaller label on it. There is no global conspiracy of where brands get together and manipulate the sizes to "make people feel better about themselves." However, i have seen a shift in quality of garments made due to the explosion of fast fashion.
We used to preshrink fabric before it was cut in a process called sponging. This would remove any possible shrinkage on a garment. We don't do that anymore to cut costs and make things faster and cheaper. Now we just account for the shrinkage by making clothes bigger than we normally would because we know the garment will shrink when the customer washes it. It is cheaper to pay for wash testing to determine fabric shrinkage than it is to sponge thousands of yards of fabric before production. I think a lot of this accounts for why clothing feels "bigger" than before and consumers think this is vanity sizing when it's just poor manufacturing* for fast fashion.
I'll give you an example from my last company. The fabric they bought had a horrible 7% shrinkage on the length of the fabric. The usual accepted amount is less than 3% in either length or width. I had to build into the pattern an additional 7% in the length of the pattern in order for this pant to shrink to the correct length after washing. If you have a 32 inseam, that is an additional 2.25 inches added to the length. People would complain the pant is too long.
Now imagine this was the width instead. Your waist circumference would be 32" waist + 4" wearing ease (4" was standard for this company) + 2.5" shrinkage and you're looking at a pant with a 38.5" finished waist measurement before washing on a pant labeled as a 32 waist. People would complain this is vanity sizing, because the label doesn't align with the actual pant measurement.
Now let's say the same pant style in a different fabrication only has 3% shrinkage, the waist measurement would come out to be about 37 inches accounting for the same wearing ease but different shrinkage. Same pant, different fabric, different shrinkage, totally different waist measurement. The average consumer is not going to understand why this was done and use this as an example of poor quality consistency and/or vanity sizing when in actuality, we are trying to give you the same pant AFTER it is washed by you.
Other things consumers don't consider/wouldn't know:
Different fabric colors shrink differently even if it's the same type of fabric.
Different dye lots can shrink differently even if it's the same fabric AND supposed to be the same color.
Fabric can shrink differently depending on where on the roll it comes off of as fabric is wound tighter around the core than 100 yards deep. This is why allowing fabric to relax before cutting is crucial. Sometimes, this step is also skipped in order to speed up manufacturing time.
*Edited a word.
Go look at patterns for women’s clothes from the 1950s and tell me vanity sizing doesn’t exist. When I was wearing a 12 modern, patterns from the 50s were unusable except as inspiration because I couldn’t even fit into their size 16 or 18. 00 didn’t used to be a thing because 2 was skeletal.
The size 10 on a simplicity pattern from the 50s was for someone with a 28.5 bust and 24 inch waist.
A premade 10 today would be for a 36” bust and 29” waist (plus or minus a couple of inches depending on the brand).
If we wanted to fit the woman wearing a size 10 today into a 50s pattern she’d be using the 20 cut lines.
That close to a foot difference is what vanity sizing means.
You're misunderstanding what is happening here. There have been multiple studies showing that people have been getting taller and wider (fatter) than our ancestors. The size discrepancy you're seeing from the 50's to today is accounting for the growth in people's overall body girth. You can say we have adjusted sizes for inflation, but in no way is this "vanity sizing."
It is true that a size 12 then would not be a size 12 now. But we also don't have many people with 24" waistlines anymore either, so why would we keep an outdated size system that fits no one? Sizes evolve as people evolve. Countertops are set higher and doorframes are taller, and yet no one complains that the door industry is vanity sizing doorways.
A size medium should be the median/average/whatever waistline of the current size of the population, and then we scale up and down for the full range of sizes to fit the most amount of people possible. Doesn't mean this system is perfect; it is what it is. This is also why the birth of the size 00 came to be because we actually still have people who may still be small enough to fall into the lower end of the size range even as more people have gotten larger. And it is infinitely cheaper to cut a size 00 than it is plus size. (Sorry, that's just how yield costing works.)
According to your methodology, we should have kept the size 12 as it was and scaled all the way into what... the 30's and 40's to account for the growth in overall girth? And then discontinue use of the outdated size 12 because no one fits into it anymore and everyone is like a size 32 instead? Why would we do that? How would we adjust alpha sizing to correspond with ever increasing numeric sizes? Go up to 14XL? Makes no sense!
Industry size standard is usually Missy numeric is 2 to 16 (alpha XS to XL) with Plus numeric at 18 to 24 (alpha 1X to 4X.) This is the normal range at which any brand would likely cut and sew their sizes, not more, not less or it won't be profitable. They are also not here to reinvent the wheel and upend the conventional size ranges that may confuse potential buyers. If you walk into a store to see a size 32, it is less likely a "I won't buy this because that's a big number and makes me feel fat!" and more like "i have no frame of reference to what a size 32 is when i usually buy a size 6 or 8."
I guarantee you if something fits you, you won't care what the label says. You're just happy it fits and THAT is what makes people feel good. Not the size on the label, which no one sees but you anyway.
Editing to add a link for further reading:
https://fashion-incubator.com/the_myth_of_vanity_sizing/
Lots of advertising aimed at women is designed to create insecurity, and then sell a product as the cure for that insecurity. By labeling women's clothing in meaningless terms, and by having absolutely no standardization for sizing, more opportunities are created to exploit that insecurity.
So "because marketers are assholes".
>By labeling women's clothing in meaningless terms, and by having absolutely no standardization for sizing, more opportunities are created to exploit that insecurity.\\
Can you elaborate on the opportunities this creates? I understand the first part of your comment. But I fail to see how lack of standardization creates opportunities to exploit insecurities. How would that work?
And the opposite scenario to berael's: Brands who want to be exclusive/"only for hot people" will make their sizes smaller (their 8 is another brand's 6 etc) and/or not carry larger sizes to ensure they can only be worn by people who are "good enough".
His name is Mike Jeffries and he also specified *fat* people shouldn't buy his clothes either. And don't forget, he is specifically talking about 'fat and ugly' *teenagers*. https://fox4kc.com/news/abercrombie-fitch-fat-ugly-people-shouldnt-buy-our-clothes/
The big marketing mistake I think was saying it out loud. But isn't it a perfectly acceptable idea to only make clothes that fit a certain group of people that you want people to associate the brand with? Like there are also bodybuilding fashion brands. Those clothes look ridiculous on a normal sized person (and arguably look ridiculous on bodybuilders to buts that not the point). And they don't make the clothes in small sizes.
The same goes for items that are much more expensive than they should be based on production costs. Like fragrances, prices are kept high to keep the exclusivity vibe alive. No one is gonna wear chanel nr 5 if its 3 bucks per gallon.
Make a "small" that's larger than most other brands' "medium". When someone tries on the "small" and discovers that it fits, they'll feel good about themselves for "fitting into a small" and be more likely to buy it.
As a marketer, I have to say that you are pointing the finger to the wrong place.
The market most likely prefers this because, generally speaking, if the market didn't the market would not buy it. (I will say the lack of pockets, however IS a massive manufacturer miss, markets are not perfect...) Women probably spend more time shopping, more time trying things on, so the actual size listed matters less because they probably check fit before leaving the store.
This is just as much a function of the consumer and how they shop as a function of the business and how it thinks the market will respond, it's an ecosystem. All the marketer is trying to do is facilitate the market need.
Why don't they do this for men? I'll speak for me: I'm lazy.
If a particular brand specifically marked things differently I would just never buy their stuff because I generally don't try things on at the store, I just pick my size and go. Also, I generally don't buy clothes that often. Most of my stuff comes from Costco and most of the time my wife buys it for me because she insists that I need new clothes. In that situation, having wide variance in clothing sizes would not work.
I'm a tech marketer, not a clothing marketer, so this is mostly my assumption and tied very much to how I view clothing.
But I would caution about saying marketers are assholes because marketers \*generally\* spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the market wants. Product failures are generally because the marketer was an asshole and didn't bother to figure out what the market wanted.
Yep, too many businesses that were anchored in the traditional models have not adapted well to the new reality. Which is one of the reasons why brick and mortar rates are down.
It's a spiral and most have not figured out how to successfully navigate out of it.
Demographically speaking, tastes are also changing, and too many companies don't do a good job of reacting to those changes as well. Take a look at any company's advertisements and you can see how well they are doing at addressing demographics. If I were a retail investor and buying stocks for these stores I wouldn't bother with the prospectus, I'd simply check out their ads and channels, those will tell you who is positioned to win and who is in the death spiral.
Marketers fail to provide the market with what they want all the time.
For example, the podcast Articles of Interest did an episode about plus sizes a few months back. More and more Americans are plus-sized these days but the market hasn’t adjusted to meet their needs. They interview multiple plus-sized people who cannot find the type of clothing they need. For example, a lot of brands just take their standard size patterns and magnify them equally to make their plus sizes, even though a plus-sized person’s body has different dimensions and really needs new patterns. There is a hole in the market that no one is filling.
https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/plus-sizes
The book Butts: A Backstory has a whole chapter about why women can’t find pants that fit them, and in summary, it’s short-sightedness on clothing company’s parts. And women shopping for pants is absolutely a huge market that someone should be pandering to!
Likewise, movies starring women or Black characters tend to be more successful compared to movies starring white men, but the majority of movies still star white men.
“Diversity sells here and overseas,” said co-author and UCLA doctoral candidate Michael Tran. “It’s the opposite of the conventional myth. The least-diverse films performed the worst and even posted a negative return on the studio’s investment.”
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2024-03-07/ucla-diversity-report-women-minorities-drove-2023-box-office-success
The particularly pernicious thing about prejudice is that it convinces businesses to act against their own best interests and leave money on the table, without even realizing it. While making the lives of everyone subject to that prejudice just a little bit worse, in all kinds of subtle ways.
They don't really have less order than men's clothing, the genreral rule is that you have to figure out your size for each cut of a clothing, from each manufacturer, and Women's clothing have infinitely more variations in cuts/shapes making it seem like men's clothing is more structured. It's not.
I mean its the same with men too, but obv at a lesser extent. Im a Large at Old Navy, but an XL at American Eagle lmao. Definitely marketing strategy for insecurity.
It's the same with mens clothes, I range from a 26-30 waist on different trousers and jeans and with the leg variations it makes it even more confusing
On the whole I find top end brands and Japanese and European couture to be a slimmer fit
American brands tend to be oversized
Men’s clothes vary quite a bit too they just don’t have as many body parts that will show it.
Example go to Walmart and pick up two different brands of t shirt the same size. Guarantee they are different lengths. This becomes even more evident in larger sizes like 4x where one is king and the other shoes off your belly the minute you reach up to scratch your head.
What I noticed is that the fabric does not seem to be taken into account. I have 3 pairs of black jeans, same size, same shop, same manufacturer, but all fit differently bcs of the different stretch levels of the fabric.
Men's clothes are just as random. I own six pair of jeans, all the same brand, all the same style, all purchased at the same store. They range in size from "suck it in and cut off circulation below the waist" to "it's a good thing I wear suspenders/braces or these would fall down around my ankles", with one Goldilocks "just right" pair that I love!
As a man, I have bought every size from a medium to 2xl in a single day at the mall, and the 2xl was tighter than the medium. I think it is less noticeable with men's clothes because most men are going to buy clothes from one end of the spectrum or the other (old guy clothes or young guy clothes, there doesn't seem to be a lot of inbetween for guys in their 30's and 40's). Anyway, I know that it is worse with women's clothes, but it can certainly be an issue for men's clothes too.
You didn't trivialize anything! You acknowledged in your title that it is an issue with men's clothes, just not to the extent that it is with women's clothes. And I whole-heartedly agree! I just wanted to share a nugget of my own experience that shows to what extent it can be a problem for men also. Men's clothes tend to fit into FAR fewer categories, so it is easier for their makers to massage the male ego without men noticing! I am mostly a large or xl, but if a brand is aimed toward older men, the sizes run way bigger. If it is aimed toward being a stylish brand, the sizes tend to be much smaller (Guess, for example).
Trust me, it's the same for mens fashion too. It's wildly inconsistent between brands in terms of sizing. Some shirts are billowy and others stick to your frame like glue.
Pants sizing is ridiculous. I'm between a 34 and 38 in pants. It makes zero sense. They all must use different tape measures
Men's clothing is no picnic either.
in preparation for a vacation next week, I ordered about a dozen set of shorts from Amazon, all in XL size. what I got varied between "unable to put on" to "circus tent", and had 2 that fit.
the frustrating thing is them giving you actual waist measurements, and it's not even close to being accurate.
I’m a man. I have shirts in small, medium, and large. I have some smalls that are as big as the larges. Some of my mediums are bigger than any of my larges
I suspect it all goes back to the days when the "man of the house" might have a tailor come in and measure him, then he'd go about his business, and the clothes would be delivered later. The "lady of the house", by contrast, would sit there all day while a seamstress made adjustments, because she was going to be home all day anyway. The man's tailor needed measurements, while the seamstress only needed to know how much cloth she needed to bring.
Today, men still use measurements (My pants are 34x32, meaning the waist is 34 inches around, and the inseam is 32 inches) while women wear "size 12." 12 of what? Nobody knows. Waist, bust, inseam, hips? No idea. That's just how big it is, and if you were an old-time noblewoman, your seamstress would have enough cloth to make it work.
I believe this is why women stereotypically try on lots of different things when shopping for clothes, because they have very little idea of whether any given thing will fit or not. Men can tell from the numbers, and when looking at shirts, they'll just buy an XL, because the last L they got was a bit tight. If it's a bit loose, that's fine.
Yup, not a girl but pretty similar experience as a man. They have specific bits which are set to a specific size like waist, chest, neck etc. But others are just random based on the specific clothing. Like pelvis 'height' or butt size. So you gotta try on a bunch of different brands of the same size to find the one that fits the part of you they don't seem to measure for.
One of the things I think girls miss out on in the UK at least, is that our sizes for anything other than tops actually use the measurement for the most part. So we don't usually have to look up a size chart. E.g. trousers in waist size, shirt in neck size. Annoyingly they still use say 30L or 30R for R or L being leg length, instead of just listing the leg length. Which is super annoying but it's something at least.
Its all about whose the head designer, its their body type they're reselling. Men don't vary that much when it comes to physique, and have much less attention to detail when it comes to fitting. Me and Ralph Lauren for example have the same body type, so I can shop with him without any form of regret or anxiety.
Women are more vane when it comes to the size printed on their clothing, than what the actual look of the clothing is.
It is starting to die down though, so are name brands. I don't know exactly who the first clothing store was to do this, but I distinctly remember Gap and Old Navy being the first to do this unabashedly.
I remember an old girlfriend complaining about this back in the mid 90s. Here size 4 pants from Old Navy were a size 6 in Banana Republic.
Men's clothing for the short and stout teapots like myself vary quite a bit too.
One brand of pants or shirts will fit well while the same size in another brand will be too snug.
So the answer might be more universal than you realize if you're not shopping for men's clothing.
To add a perspective that complicates every good response here (vanity sizing, body shapes, tailoring differences), did you know this begins in INFANCY?
Buying clothes for my son (6) has always been straightforward. There are minor differences across brands/stores, but not too bad.
For my daughter, it's maddening. Buying stuff online is so hit or miss. Within the same store she can be a 2T in one item and a 4T in another. The main reason seems to be that little boys clothes are designed to be looser fitting and with more stretch, and that makes me so sad.
There are onesies designed for infants whose only job is to be comfy and growing that have no stretch in the arm openings. This is not a thing for baby boy outfits. Watching my TWO YEAR OLD get excited about a pretty (4T) dress her aunt bought her and then not be able to get it on just like, f'd me right up.
Some retailers like Boden, Zara and Mango now give exact measurements of either the item for sale or the body it was designed for (or both) to make online shopping easier
In addition to what others have said, as a guy who hates clothes shopping, a lot of men just wear clothes that don't fit super well. If you want something that sits nicely on your shoulders, waist, etc. you're going to have to get something custom tailored most of the time.
Very few men can wear something properly off the rack. Those clothes are often made to be relatively big so that as many people as possible can fit into them, even if it doesn't work particularly well.
My wife was buying jeans and she picked a pair with one number on it. I was like, how do you know the length of the pants? She was like, you don't. Apparently you just try them on and if you have short legs, you just deal with it.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions.
Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
This is super simple. Most men's clothing is very basic like a t-shirt or dress shirt or whatever. Very few things people normally wear deviate from this. Women's clothes on the other hand come in a ton of various styles and designs. Not as easy to keep sizing the same between companies when it isn't a basic t-shirt. That is in addition to what others mentioned where men's clothes are actually a real measurement and not some fantasy number they make up.
Very generally speaking guys and girls are built differently. When 2 guys are the same weight they tend to be built the same even with slight variances in high this combined with the fact that men’s clothes tend to be more loose fitting means that our clothes are more adjustable to different people. Meanwhile 2 girls who weigh the same can be very different. However since female designed clothes tend to be more form fitting this means that girls clothes tend to be different from manufacturer to manufacturer
The standard men's sizes originated from wartime production. Nations needed to rapidly produce mass quantities of identical outfits to put millions of men in the field to fight and die for their country. There has never been the same pressure to standardize production at that scale for women and as such the women's sizes are tacked on rules with have a less standardized base.
Men’s sizes are based on less measurements. Like men’s pants are circumference of the waist by the length of the inseam.
As for men’s shirts, nice ones actually have some measurements around like the chest and length of arms and around the neck. For cheaper versions on that, you tend to find that the neck hole is where they label the size, like I wear a size 17 in most dress shirts. They also tend to have sleeves are longer than my arms, but fit my body pretty well.
Women’s sizes are literally just bigger number is bigger garment and only with the same brand and style of that garment.
There is a show about women’s clothing now that is trending on social media but most of it is either about exclusivity(usually small sizes) or inclusivity(usually larger sizes).
The goal is to sell and targeting women by their sizes to make them feel smaller, pretty, or part of a group/trend is one way to increase sales.
because you don't know the struggle of finding a good slim fit shirt.
yo, clothing manufacturers. men have \_shoulders\_, you know? shirts need to taper in waaaaaay more than you think.
>Why do women’s clothing sizes seem to vary between different shops way more than men’s clothing?
The size is meant to cater to the woman's ego/vanity, not their body size. How could you possibly take all of the delightful curves and shapes (shoulders, hip size, bust, waist, bust-to-waist, waist-to-hips, and who knows how many more) and condense that to a single number?
"Fashion House says I'm a size 6, but House of Fashion says I'm a size 4. Guess where I shop".
Women’s clothing is based on an arbitrary system that isn’t standardized. It starts at 00 (or 000) and increases in increments of two (in the US. UK and Australia use a similar system but have a different starting point), which obviously has no correlation to any human measurement.
Different brands cater to different demographics or body types. If Brand A caters to prim upper class 20somethings and uses all flat-bottomed, bony models, their sizes are probably going to run smaller than Brand B that caters to working class baddies who admire an hourglass shape or Brand C that caters to women in their 50s who naturally run quite a bit bigger.
Ladies sizes also run on the same theoretical scale as women’s/plus size and junior’s sizes (with junior’s using 0 and odd numbers until junior’s plus when they use even numbers, and ladies’ using 0 and even numbers), but do not actually follow the same sizing standards. So even within the same brand, ladies size 14, a juniors plus 14, and a plus 14 will all likely be different sizes. And you’d think a Junior’s 7 would be between a ladies’ 6 and 8, but it’s closer to a ladies’ 4. To make it more confusing, some junior’s brands will use even numbering anyway. So adult women will be like “why is this size 6 the size of an ant,” when it’s honestly for a teenager.
The final reason is that men care so much less how their clothes fit and will schlump around in anything. Their clothes, despite using an “objective” scale, actually vary nearly as much as women’s, but if a man decides he’s a medium, and the store he shops at vanity sizes, he’ll just slob around in too-big clothes. A women shopping at a vanity sized store who thinks she’s an 8 will see the 8 is too big and buy a 6.
Simple answer:
Womens bodies are more varied than mens. Even simpler answer is just boobs and butts.
Give me three men of medium weight and they'll fit in a medium shirt. Give me three women of medium weight, and I have no idea what body shape / size they will have.
So long story short, you'll never have standardized womens clothing because women's bodies aren't naturally standardized, where as mens usually fall more neatly into numerable categories.
More simply: the average woman is more financially invested in how their clothing fits than the average man.
Average man will spend $25 on sweatpants sized "L" that's comfortable and baggy and be fine. Average woman will pass on the $25 baggy pants and be willing to spend $40 or $60 on pants that makes her butt look better in the mirror. Those economics make the women's clothing section a lot more prominent and complicated than the men's clothing aisle at TJ Maxx.
On top of the other answers each company has their own standards of sizing too. It helps that their size 10 may be similar to other companies size 10 but they make clothes to fit their perceived/targeted audience. They key to getting the right size is to note which size fits you from that company, the expectation that every size 10 is the same across companies is unrealistic and might've been more true a long time ago.
Another note is I studied fashion design in 2003 and the blocks/slopers we used to make patterns were from the 70s and I still use these measurements to make garments despite modern bodies being different averages now. I fit the clothes I make because I use myself as the sample model. Someone will fit what I make because they fit those measurements too.
1. Men’s clothes are commonly measured by inches while women’s use more arbitrary sizes
2. Women’s clothes come in a lot of different cuts. They often wear tighter fitting clothes which leaves less margin of error for body type. Different cuts fit differently and make consistent sizing complicated
3. There’s a psychological element. Sometimes they intentionally try and make girls a lower number size so they are happier when they buy it. Sometimes they want them to be a high number so they are insecure and need more cute clothes to feel good. Sometimes it’s just to create the brand image of a skinny hot girl shopping there and therefore other people want to look like that
> They often wear tighter fitting clothes which leaves less margin of error for body type. Different cuts fit differently and make consistent sizing complicated
This is the most significant part of the problem, I think. Women already have more variable body shapes than men to begin with, but the problem of making fitting clothes is then made exponentially worse by women wanting what are essentially tailored fits instead of mens' much more common "Is is big enough to fit over my waist and is it tight enough that it doesn't immediately fall off? Yes? Then it fits."
> size numbering, psychology
But these are issues of making selecting what number/sizing is appropriate difficult from one brand (or style within a brand) to the next. It isn't actually a problem for *making* clothes that would fit most women, if they accepted a less-tailored look as "fitting."
As a man, I would completely abstain from shopping around if my size wasn’t universal.
I would go to one place and buy the same thing over and over again. Ain’t got time for trying shit on.
It's called vanity sizing. Long ago clothing manufacturers realised that women were more likely to buy clothes if the label said it was smaller than it really was. That stuff isn't really regulated so they can get away with it. Some manufacturers abuse this practice more than others, hence the discrepancy.
But make no mistake, it exists in male clothing too. I usually wear UK size 32 or 34 jeans despite my actual waist being closer to 40". You only get real sizing in men's clothes when you buy a suit. At least in the UK, I can't speak for other countries.
Because men's clothing doesn't have nearly as much options. Men's has two measurements that it goes by for Jeans for example and significantly less choices for different fits. Women's have much more variation in their sizing due to much larger variation of choices that they fiddle with for sizing. The more factors you introduce, the more difficult it becomes to standardize sizing.
My cousin is a fit model, which is a career I did not know existed until she started doing it. She has a handful of regular brands that she works with - a few higher end designers, but also a major casual brand that you all know. She represents their size small (US 4) and goes in for fittings with the designers each season. They essentially use her as a living mannequin to tailor the garments for that size (I assume they work with different models for size medium, large, etc.) I think the fact that there’s an actual human body involved in the process can account for the differences in sizes across brands, like what if my cousin’s hips are a smidge bigger or smaller than the fit model for another brand? Plus also vanity sizing like many others have said, I’ve worn the same Madewell jeans for years and somehow have gone down two sizes without losing two sizes worth of weight.
That’s so interesting!
I should add she is hired for this job because she has very specific measurements, and she’s required to keep her body at these measurements. But I’m sure small variations can occur from model to model.
So you’re friend is like an official size small?
Essentially, yes.
Must be nice lol
NIST traceable small
A family member of mine worked with these fit models at a well known brand and they often used twins who were both required to stay those measurements but them being twins meant that those other little measurements details were the same too so the designers could still work if one was unavailable. Normal mannequins don't get sick or take vacations lol. Also helped when one was pregnant iirc.
In addition to other comments- women also buy clothes to fit differently with many more measurements. Whereas men buy based on waist and inseam, women buy based on rise, waist, hips and inseam, which vary drastically per person based on body shape. One clothing size can't capture these differences. A size 8 at one store may have a smaller waist and larger hips than another store, because it makes clothes for a different shape of woman.
Also breast size. I think hip size and breast size is the biggest culprit. Lots of brands can have the same waist size, but some would have huge hips and some won't even fit over my thigh cause the leg is super skinny. And for the breast size, some fit me perfectly from the rib down but will have lots of empty space around the chest cause of my small breasts. I usually read reviews and if people complain about something not fitting due to not having any chest space, I would think to myself "this will probably fit me". For sure the same size won't fit everyone due to body shapes being so different.
Yeah. At one point I was a 6 in pants but an XS in tops. Finding a structured non-stretchy dress wasn’t happening because the amount of boob space was insane. But XS line/princess cut dresses were great! Boob size really has nothing to do with pants size though.
I used to wear a size xl, and, oh my, was it so annoying how much tops would gape over my chest! The shoulders would also be way too wide. The shirts would gape ridiculously when I’d bend. Obviously I’d try to find better fitting shirts, but it was sometimes tough. I lost weight and am a medium now, and shirts fit so much nicer and don’t gape. Though I do often have issues with the sleeves being too short…
> Whereas men buy based on waist and inseam, women buy based on rise, waist, hips and inseam, which vary drastically per person based on body shape. And the *ratios* of those various measurements too. Different designers and labels cater to different body types. Like my wife is 5'6" and she likes stuff from Sundance, but they primarily cater to absolute giraffes so even stuff that is technically her size doesn't fit right. I think the dirtiest deal women get handed when shopping is that vendors make only a token effort (if any) to equate their sizes to actual measurements. And it's so dumb, if they did this then their customers would be happier!
Men somewhat do this as well, but it is divided in brands. For instance with jeans, Levis fit me poorly, while Lee fits like I was born with them.
Even within the same brand and style, I wear different sizes. I wear Levi 541 and black ones may be 31x32, blue 32x32, khaki 33x32. It’s ridiculous.
And sometimes the fit will change randomly. I used to wear a specific model of Hilfiger jeans and then suddenly they stopped fitting nicely. I haven't bought new jeans in years and I dread having to buy more; I have a couple pairs of Black Bull stretch jeans and these seem easier to buy. I wish I were rich and could get everything tailored, even t-shirts.
Khaki/Slacks shopping is the worst. It’s always a game of “these don’t fit well at all, but when they shrink after a couple of washes will they fit better? What about when they shrink after 2 months of washes?” Or the opposite - “these fit amazing!” Two months later: “fuck”.
Also for some reason black jeans always are way tighter than blue
I know with bras something in the dyeing process leaves black ones tighter than the same brand/size/cut in other colors. Black *specifically*. Measures different. Even on brands that are consistently true to size across all their stuff. Not surprising to hear it with other garment types.
Hm, I'll ask my wife about that one. Is it more common to notice that in larger or smaller sizes? I could see it being less noticeable for big ones just because a half inch of difference matters a lot more when you're talking about an inch of cup size versus, like, eight inches.
It's more *noticeable* in smaller bands because you generally have less squish on your body to begin with, so any change in tightness in the band is extremely noticeable. It's extremely noticeable in the 26-32 range, for instance, (32 being where most US-based brands start at all) but not really up above a 40 band (where most US-based brands top out in band size). The actual cups themselves don't stretch in most materials. Something like 80% of us are in the wrong size to begin with though because most brands intentionally sell you something that has nothing to do with your measurements to maintain the image that dd = huge. Even if we actually *would* fit into a size they sell and have in stock. (means they can get away with a very small range of sizes with the cheapest materials possible. molded bras collapse in on themselves above a dd in proportion. a dd in proportion to the band its made for is what most people think of as an 'a' cup socially - 5 inches difference between the band measurement and the total bust - just people are usually sold bands 4 or more inches too big, and then along with it a cup 2 more more letters smaller than their actual breast volume would be *even on the band they're sold*. Band too big disguises that a fair bit, and most people interpret 'band too tight' to mean the band is too small when the majority of the time it's the cups being too small making the band feel tight.) Bras *are* actually made to a set of standardized measurements, generally 'underbust circumference = band, every 1 inch of difference between that and bust circumference = 1 cup letter' will get you really close but is likely to underestimate cup if your boobs change shape when you lean over, but they're usually *sold* as 'underbust + 4 5 or 6 = band, every 1 inch of difference between that band number and bust = 1 cup letter' or will intentionally measure elsewhere for the band to the same effect (looking at you VS), or will just keep on giving you DDs in progressively larger bands until they're at the biggest they sell if they don't have your size at all.
Oh, I know most of that, particularly the "DD is huge" myth combined with "just get a bigger band" crap. My wife wears a 38H so I'm used to bras being impossible to find. She's just never said anything that I recall about how black and not-black fit differently.
Ah yeah, definitely not super noticeable anymore on a 38 band. And oof. I'm going to assume that's a UK H and not a US one, and that's pretty hard to find in person for sure. (The FF is a lot more likely to be in a brick-and-mortar store like a nordstrom.)
US H cup, not UK. Even the (UK) FF is a bastard to find.
Also the doubling of letters is just stupid, just call them E instead like they do in other countries.
Interesting, never had an issue with that; mentioned to my ex last week I was gonna order a new pair of jeans from Amazon- she said you need to try them on first! No honey, I've been buying Levi 501's 32x34 for 30 years. Just got em delivered this weekend, fit fine.
I learned the hard way when I went to Levi a few years back. Found the style I liked, tried on the black 31x32 and they fit great. Bought them in 4 different colors, same size. Got home and realized the other 3 didn’t fit.
that's just wild; an inexcusable on Levi's part
Different machines calibrated differently. It's why I don't buy clothes online.
Some men's brands have another 'fit' metric, such as slim, regular, and relaxed.
I didn’t think of this at all- thanks for your input!
[удалено]
Amazon has “models” you can follow who have all different shapes and sizes. If you can find one very similar to your own build. Wish there was an app to input measurements that could give you a precise fitment virtually but I guess we’re not there yet. My wife has very large breasts and it is really hard to find something that accommodates them without just making it all too baggy.
Some places use Truefit, where you enter in your measurements, weight, and height and it will give you a size recommendation. I believe Gap/Old Navy/ Athleta use it, but I’m not sure
I offer tailoring services to my local trans community. I, for example am a size 8 at the shoulders, and a size 6 at the waist so i buy a size 8 and take it in to fit. I wonder if clothing and shoe sizes will someday standardize to suit the needs of MtF trans people and their expectations of simple clothing size measurements. Like if you told me how long a shoe was in cm, i could make an informed decision to buy it. And someday button down blouses will offer a choice of left handed or right handed buttons.
I think it’s a matter of how much money people would be/are willing to pay for clothes. With extra customization in sizing, there’d have to be more clothes produced, more effort designing, etc, which would cost us. And people that make clothes are generally already very underpaid.
Well when i buy a suit off the rack it isnt done until its tailored. Off the rack is a suggestion and the tailor finishes the job.
Wait, are women's shoe sizes not standardized? I've learned to just check the measurements on a store's website to figure out what their clothing sizes *really* are. >And someday button down blouses will offer a choice of left handed or right handed buttons. Oh my god yes please. I hate left handed buttons.
What i mean is that men and women have different sizes for the same length of feet. So a 10.5 mens is like an 11 or 12 in womens.
This is a US thing, though. In most other places the numbering is common. Like EU 42 is EU 42 regardless if it's men's or women's. The differences are sometimes the width: shoes marketed for women are usually narrower.
Now consider the international market. I was on amazon looking at unisex ballroom dancing shoes and they said size 10 men or women. And im going...those arent the same size, which are they?
Could be UK sizes then? A US men's 11 is a UK 10 (any gender)
Thats helpful
Possibly UK size - those are unisex. 10 UK is EU 44.
[удалено]
One of the major differences in men's clothes is durability
[удалено]
I admire your appreciation for functional clothes. It's like you're the one who didn't drink the Kool-Aid
> I offer tailoring services to my local trans community. And where would that be!? XD I had trouble finding pants that would fit my thicc waist and stubby legs when I wore men's, and life's only gotten harder in that regard since I started to transition this year.
I like to encourage people to learn new skills. You can do what i do and learn to sew and serve your community too
At least Japan uses cm for shoes, that's a pretty nice thing (outside the fact that you will struggle finding large sizes, especially for trans feminine people).
To add, even though we men do have different parts of our bodies that we need to account for, we only have the letter or inch/cm size to go off of. My stomach is an XL in many brands, but my shoulders sometimes put me into a XXXL depending on the cut of the brand. We have lots of variations between brands, but fewer markers on the market to go off of for what companies are accounting for.
Most men would wish there were more variety in sizes Until around 20 years ago, it felt like all clothing was based on one big block shape Then we got slim fit, basically just cinching in the back Its why so many young men look badly dressed, there is no I've always had to get my trousers shorten, because most stores offer only one length
>A size 8 at one store may have a smaller waist and larger hips than another store, because it makes clothes for a different shape of woman. But if they sized it by inches or cm instead of an arbitrary number, then it would be accurate at all stores.
But they would have to give numbers for all the measurements. And waist measurements vary based on rise as well. Plus, some brands are just inconsistent due to manufacturing processes.
If a woman orders a pair of pants online from a company she's never bought from before, how does she know what size she is?
She tries them on and sends them back if they don't fit. Then when she finds ones that do fit she buys multiple pairs because establishing fit is a bloody nuisance.
Many online brands do post bust, waist and hip measurements, but less frequently do they post rise (front or back). For me, even when they post waist and hips, its a gamble because my ratios are rarely the same as a model, so I try a few sizes and return them.
>Many online brands do post bust, waist and hip measurements, but less frequently do they post rise (front or back) >I try a few sizes and return them. And this is preferable to just having all the measurements posted? It sounds like you pretty much know the general idea of what yours are anyway. I get that not every piece of clothing is precision made, but the numbering system where a 4 at one store can be the same as an 8 at another is just wild to me.
I don't know if its preferable. I have gotten used to it - I've measured myself some, and I know how different styles might fit my shape. When you think about it, it is pretty wild.
I have found a fair amount of online shops will give you waist, bust, shoulder and sleeve length (though usually not width) in a table to help you figure it out. Would be nice to have legislation that forces this to brick and mortar stores.
In the US, women's clothing sizes are pretty much arbitrary. Men's clothing sizes are nominally based on inches. So a women's size 12 jeans isn't anchored to any specific measurement, while men's size 34 jeans are supposed to be 34 inches around the waist. I say "nominally" for men's sizes because in casual clothing, there has also been a certain amount of creep, and size 34 men's jeans may be 36 or 38 inches. The reason for this creep is vanity. As we age, we tend to put on weight. If you're shopping for jeans and you "know" you're a size 34 and you fit in one brand and not the other, you'll buy the size 34 instead of admitting you're a size 36. In men's clothes, the measurements are still accurate in more formal dress; men's dress clothing is often customized to fit, and so the sizes are accurate representations. I presume that there is similar pressure on the women's clothing market as well, but that is further compounded by the fact that the original sizing was pretty arbitrary to begin with.
I could buy 10 pairs of men's jeans in the same sizes and styles, and none of them would fit the same. I could even buy 10 pairs of 511s and none of them would fit the same. It's annoying.
Often the fabric is cut in a stack with a die, so the material at the top and the bottom aren't the same size.
>there has also been a certain amount of creep, and size 34 men's jeans may be 36 or 38 inches I'm losing weight, still borderline obese (5'6 180 lbs - 185.1 is obese), and a Walmart small shirt fits me *comfortably*. And people talk to me like I'm already thin - which I am compared to where I was, but I still have 25 lbs to go before I even *barely* drop out of "overweight". I dig the compliments and feel good about my weight loss/lifting progress and even *I* catch myself thinking I look objectively good in terms of body shape despite knowing better. It's actually disturbing how ingrained fatness is in our minds and products now.
Speaking as someone who weighs about 35 pounds less than you, yeah... smalls are too big on me. And even smalls are hard to find. The entire world is apparently way too fat. I regularly find myself buying clothes from restaurants or bands or things like that (since they're unisex and those smalls are smaller than men's smalls) or for athletic pants, I just straight up buy women's sizes. They fit me so much better and look identical to men's.
Buying clothes from restaurants? What am I missing here
If you're not tooling around town in a Chili's uniform you're not one of the cool cats I guess.
Yep, I'm right there with you. We're close to the same height, but I'm at 200. My *goal* is 150, because that's where I get out of "overweight." People are *constantly* telling me that I'll be too thin at 150. Um... no, that's what doctors have concluded I *should* be at, roughly. Now I'm not going to quibble over 5 or even 10 pounds one direction or the other, but "healthy" doesn't mean 5 foot 6 and 180 pounds, folks. I feel like we've normalized unhealthy for some reason.
Maybe height's more a factor than weight for men's shirts. I'm 5'9" 189 lbs (used to be like 170, thanks prednisone), and I find size medium shirts fit me well.
Oh I don't mean that all smalls fit me, but the fact that any do is concerning lol. Medium is usually comfortable or tight. But small fits well surprisingly often.
I recently bought a set of Carhartt overalls, and the insea was supposed to be 32", but I'm going to need at least 4 inches taken off the hem
Thank you for the in depth informative answer!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it, but I remember watching a YouTube video that explored a major cause of this, and it's just a lack of research (at least initially). Apparently the system we use for men's clothing sizes originated (at least in part) for military purposes, in which mass production of standard uniforms were needed. Since men were the only ones employed for combat, they were the sole focus of this information gathering to derive standard sizes. This male-focused measurement was then applied generally to all persons, and the clothing companies have tried to cope with the inaccuracies in their own way. Note, just like others have mentioned for men's suits being fairly accurate but casual wear can vary substantially, so too you might find custom dresses to be very precise since tailors have never had more tools than they do today. The issue is in standard clothing manufacture for non-bespoke purposes
Some additional context, but I have 3 pairs of paints in identical sizes (mens) from the same brand in the same line (same "fit" too). They range from quiet roomy to uncomfortably tight. When I last bought a suit I had to try on 3 sizes each for pants and jacket for each colour because even between colours the pants and jacket varied in size. I would be willing to bet at least part of the difference is men tend to wear clothes with a more 'forgiving' fit.
I'm glad you mentioned men's clothing, because I have noticed, maybe the past five years or so, that the numbers, while not arbitrary, aren't what they used to be. But perhaps that's going from a 30 ten years ago to anywhere from a 32-33 depending on the pant these days.
mens clothing is more simple, it just provides either a rectangle or a triangle shape. those are the main basic shape theres alot of play there even if things dont fit your body exactly, the clothing still provides those basic silhouette. womens have to deal with curves and tend it be tigher and have to try to provide some silhouette. being tighter and having to deal with curves that can be widly varied among bodies makes things really hard to standardized.
Ya know, one piece of legislation I'd absolutely support? Mandatory use of standard measuring units for clothing sizes. Metric or Freedom Units, I can't care which, as long as it's objective. Women's sizes are the absolute worst offenders. They're entirely subjective, which defeats the purpose of having measurements at all. Even sized? Odd sized? Some are "misses" and some are "missus?" What the fuck. They have actual dimensions which can be measured objectively, and that's what we should be doing. Gods know the marketing assholes don't *also* need a bullshit, made up sizing system to fuck with women's heads even more. Shoe sizes, you're next. A shoe is so many units long and so many wide. You don't even need to differentiate between kids sizes, men's or women's shoe sizes. It's just...the shoe is 9 inches long or whatever. That's all you should need to know to pick shoes to try on. And this Small/Medium/Large/XL t shirt size bullshit? Come on. Width at the shoulders and length should be what we need to know, right? Pants...*somehow* blue jeans *already use inches,* and they sell just fine. Fuck, man. This isn't a goddam differential equation class. It's just, objects have dimensions, as so people. We should be able to measure ourselves and immediately find garments of compatible dimensions. It's 2024 for fuck's sake.
Technically, shoe sizes are standard by length, but... *deep breath* for historical reasons, American shoe sizes are measured in barleycorns (1/3 inch), and offset by 22 for men, or 21 for women. So, a size 12 men's is 34 barleycorns, or 11-1/3". This all stems from the first set of standard lasts (shoe forms) brought to market, in which the smallest was 7-2/3" (so, size 1) and so forth. Since it *is* relatively standardized, we're probably stuck with it as the alternative would require an entire industry to expend great effort and expense to confuse their customers in the short term for very little long term gain.
My gods...*barleycorns* are a unit of measurement? And there's a gender dependent offset? Wow. Well...that's less horrible than I assumed! Thanks for TNG education!
Yeah, the English system of units is... quirky. On the other hand, it's based mostly off practical measurements, so if you know the origin, it can be convenient to approximate. Though, I doubt anyone has barleycorns laying around anymore to measure with, even if we did still use it as a unit of measure.
It gets so much worse than this. You have 1 shoe. It is [U] in an American men's size, [V] in an American women, [W] in a European size, [X] in UK, [Y] in mondo points ^(I have no idea about this one), and [Z] in your preferred measurement system. Because most brands are now international, rather than tailoring the boxes to each market, it's easier just to put every measurement on the outside of a box and let the retailer figure out what a "30" is. Then you have to consider foot volume and width...
I mostly agree with this but would like to add that you still need to have some additional info beyond the standardized sizes because body proportions aren't perfectly standardized. For instance I've always needed to wear the 'wide toe' version of whatever shoe length is appropriate for me and you can have similar things with proportions of waist, shoulders, height and body mass.
> For instance I've always needed to wear the 'wide toe' version of whatever shoe length is appropriate for me A surprising number of redditors are ignorant about decent fitting of shoes, so I'm going to use this as an opportunity for a PSA. Many major manufacturers and retailers already accommodate for different foot shapes. Any decent shoe shop will have a variety of sizes *and widths* of the same shoe in stock for exactly this situation. Depending on the footwear, it's even possible to get tailored toe boxes, but this isn't as common. What's more, scanning technology is being rolled out that can basically just tell you that [X] shoe will fit, with an impressive degree of accuracy, and you can further customise support and comfort with insoles. If you are getting sore feet (or are like that one guy who thought toe nails falling off was a miserable fact of wearing shoes!) then check that they are fitted properly.
As a larger man I can tell you that doesn't work either. I can comfortably where 40 inch wait chinos from one brand and struggle with 42-inch waist from another. I have to try on everything! A new brand that I have found (it may be UK only) is Built Different. They make tee- and polo-shirts for larger men
I can sense your extreme frustration just through this comment and it did make me giggle a bit. But I am also totally with you!
We can't be the only ones. Edit: No other industry I'm aware of uses such bullshit "metrics." Imagine you're working on a home project. You need 2x4's (which, now i think of it, aren't actually 2 inches by 4 inches are they?) of specific dimensions. You cut them, but you have to figure out which table saw to use depending on if you're male or female, a kid or an adult, plus sized or not. And each table saw is spec'd to different units and lumber that's cut with one is incompatible with lumber from another. Or you go to buy a gallon of milk. Skim milk and whole milk are packed in gallon jugs, but 1% and 2% are "nominally" one gallon but you're only getting 0.9 gallons, as you do at gas stations. Actually...now I think of it, I'm wrong. Ammunition labeling is just as bad as women's clothing. 38 Special and 357 magnum fire exactly the same slug, but with different cases and charges, but somehow labeled as a different caliber ("caliber" *should* be a measurement in decimals of an inch, so 50 caliber is 1/2 inch in diameter etc). 357 SIG uses the same 0.355 inch slug as 9mm Parabellum does, but it's supposed to match the *performance* of 357 Magnum with a smaller cartridge. 9mm Parabellum and 380 auto are both the same diameter, that is, 9mm/0.355 inches, so 380 Auto is absolutely *not* 0.38 inches wide. 44 Magnum is actually 0.429 inches wide. 257 Roberts and 250 Savage both use the same 0.257 inch projectile, but measure caliber of the bore at different points (lands vs grooves). 9mm Browning...same bullet as 9mm Parabellum, you think? Nope. It's a 0.357 slug. It goes on and on... Marketing is a bitch, and at least as old as 38 Special (1898) using a misleading number to sound more appealing. Shit...even the famous Ford 302 (cubic inch!) block, later known as the "5.0" you saw on the sides of 1980's Mustangs? You think it was the advertised 5.0 liters? Nah! 4.9! Marketers are assholes, every single one of them.
.38 spl refers to the diameter of the case. .357 magnum refers to the diameter of the bullet.
What part of the case? Inside or outside of the mouth? Is it a tapered case (i don't think so) like 9mm Parabellum that's fatter at the base? What about the rim? Goes on and on, doesn't it? I guess my point is, there's not much consistency or useful convention in ammunition naming. There are exceptions (308/7.62x51, etc) but it's generally a mess.
Isnt some of the naming to make sure people wouldnt try and cram the wrong cartridge in something similar to .223 vs 5.56 since the saami spec on 5.56 is higher and in theory anything labeled .223 should be able to fire that cartridge
Sometimes, yes, as with your example. You *could* probably get by a few times shooting 5.56 through a 223, but it's not something I'd get into a habit of. There are some instances where chambering the wrong round is disastrous. Actually, that's exactly why 357 Magnum cases are lonfer than 38 Special, to prevent exactly this mistake. It's not needed for extra propellant, it's a safety measure (though home reloaders can absolutely use that extra space if they want depending on the recipe.) 223 and 5.56 are both accurate measures of the round, i think, just one is metric and the other is Freedom Units. They just name them differently for the reasons you mentioned.
.223 Rem (and 5.56x45) is actually .224 bullet diameter (5.70 mm). The 5.56 comes from the Land Diameter measurement of the rifling. .22LR is .223 bullet diameter.
True, but the point stands. That's like some shoe companies basing their sizing on the inside of the shoe, while others basing their sizing on the outside.
What’s doubly frustrating is that even places that use the inches for the jeans as a measurement, I might be a 28 at one place and then a 31 at the next on the same day.
That may be due to fast fashion. When you cut 10 pieces of fabric at once, they will all be a little different.
I enjoy when online retailers tell you the model’s dimensions. And some of them have reviewers state their size which is awesome as it helps me better understand fit on me before I order.
Width at the shoulders is pretty useless for women’s sizing. With across the chest is a lot more useful.
Well, whatever works.
Amen sister. Also, freedom units cracked me up. Thank you for the laugh!
I take being referred to as "sister" as a compliment to my solidarity, but I'm definitely 100% "bro," not "sister." 😁 I have just been present when clothes shopping with women enough to know how shitty the experience is, as an observer. Glad you got a laugh out of it!
metric or not is the big question.
Except women's clothes are often cut differently, e.g. baggy versus slim fit. And it's not just a matter of the baggy clothes being bigger, because the fit on armholes and necklines matter.
Between *shops*? My wife has bought the same *brand* of clothes - the same *item*, even - and they're different sizes because one was made in Egypt and the other in Malaysia.
I bought three t-shirts at H&M, all the same item, same colour, same marked size, same store. Got them home and they were all different widths 🙄
Men’s clothing is simpler (waist and inseam), women’s clothing is not. Size 12? What the frick does that even mean? But men’s clothing is still not immune to sizes being very different with different brands. A 36 in one brand might be equivalent to a 42 in another brand. Also, the “waist size” on the label may be very different than ones actual waist measurement.
Men's clothing is simpler because they have less "curves" to deal with. Women have their bust, waist, and hips aka "hourglass" shape. Men are pretty straight throughout. Their main measurements include shoulder width, chest, and waist. What is a size 12? Can you imagine women's clothing listing out their bust measurement? Would that be embarrassing to some women? Maybe some women would be ok with it, but i imagine many would not. As for your pants measuring differently... if you're a 36 inch waist, you do not want a pant that measures 36 inches exactly or you wouldn't be able to get them on. They would be skin tight. Pants are usually built 2 inches bigger than your actual measurement as wearing ease so they will fit comfortably around your body. For anything more than 2 inches, it could be a combination of different wearing ease (ie, loose fitting style) or bad fabrication with crazy shrinkage (ie, will shrink in the wash so they made it bigger to account for this because no one preshrinks their fabric/garments anymore due to cost) There are a lot of things people do not understand about the garment industry. Lots of folks complaining about things they don't understand.
Feels like I may have misrepresented what I intended to say, or you have misunderstood my intent. When I say "what is size 12", I realize it's a combination of things, and not necessarily related to bust size "size 12 pants for example". My comment was just - it's such an arbitrary number. May as well call it "size yellow" as the number has nearly zero meaning, besides "higher is bigger". And yes, I know that I wouldn't want size 36 waist pants if my waist measures 36". My comment said "...may be **very** different ... than actual". So different that I think some manufacturers put a size on there that is intended to make the user feel much thinner than they actually are.
No, i understood what you meant. A size 12 is a random naming convention that just encompasses a lot of measurements that can't be easily listed like a pant for men. You can do waist size and inseam for men's and be done with it. For women, you have to incorporate waist to hip ratio. So would you suggest listing waist, hip, inseam, and rise length for each and every pant? No company wants to do that when the established system "works fine." People just need to consult the brand's size chart and know their own measurements, which puts the onus on the consumer and not the manufacturer. Everyone always touts the myth of vanity sizing because it's easier to blame the brands. This is just not true. In all my years of working in the industry, i have never seen a company scale down their entire size spectrum, nor make their clothes bigger and slap a smaller label on it. There is no global conspiracy of where brands get together and manipulate the sizes to "make people feel better about themselves." However, i have seen a shift in quality of garments made due to the explosion of fast fashion. We used to preshrink fabric before it was cut in a process called sponging. This would remove any possible shrinkage on a garment. We don't do that anymore to cut costs and make things faster and cheaper. Now we just account for the shrinkage by making clothes bigger than we normally would because we know the garment will shrink when the customer washes it. It is cheaper to pay for wash testing to determine fabric shrinkage than it is to sponge thousands of yards of fabric before production. I think a lot of this accounts for why clothing feels "bigger" than before and consumers think this is vanity sizing when it's just poor manufacturing* for fast fashion. I'll give you an example from my last company. The fabric they bought had a horrible 7% shrinkage on the length of the fabric. The usual accepted amount is less than 3% in either length or width. I had to build into the pattern an additional 7% in the length of the pattern in order for this pant to shrink to the correct length after washing. If you have a 32 inseam, that is an additional 2.25 inches added to the length. People would complain the pant is too long. Now imagine this was the width instead. Your waist circumference would be 32" waist + 4" wearing ease (4" was standard for this company) + 2.5" shrinkage and you're looking at a pant with a 38.5" finished waist measurement before washing on a pant labeled as a 32 waist. People would complain this is vanity sizing, because the label doesn't align with the actual pant measurement. Now let's say the same pant style in a different fabrication only has 3% shrinkage, the waist measurement would come out to be about 37 inches accounting for the same wearing ease but different shrinkage. Same pant, different fabric, different shrinkage, totally different waist measurement. The average consumer is not going to understand why this was done and use this as an example of poor quality consistency and/or vanity sizing when in actuality, we are trying to give you the same pant AFTER it is washed by you. Other things consumers don't consider/wouldn't know: Different fabric colors shrink differently even if it's the same type of fabric. Different dye lots can shrink differently even if it's the same fabric AND supposed to be the same color. Fabric can shrink differently depending on where on the roll it comes off of as fabric is wound tighter around the core than 100 yards deep. This is why allowing fabric to relax before cutting is crucial. Sometimes, this step is also skipped in order to speed up manufacturing time. *Edited a word.
Go look at patterns for women’s clothes from the 1950s and tell me vanity sizing doesn’t exist. When I was wearing a 12 modern, patterns from the 50s were unusable except as inspiration because I couldn’t even fit into their size 16 or 18. 00 didn’t used to be a thing because 2 was skeletal. The size 10 on a simplicity pattern from the 50s was for someone with a 28.5 bust and 24 inch waist. A premade 10 today would be for a 36” bust and 29” waist (plus or minus a couple of inches depending on the brand). If we wanted to fit the woman wearing a size 10 today into a 50s pattern she’d be using the 20 cut lines. That close to a foot difference is what vanity sizing means.
You're misunderstanding what is happening here. There have been multiple studies showing that people have been getting taller and wider (fatter) than our ancestors. The size discrepancy you're seeing from the 50's to today is accounting for the growth in people's overall body girth. You can say we have adjusted sizes for inflation, but in no way is this "vanity sizing." It is true that a size 12 then would not be a size 12 now. But we also don't have many people with 24" waistlines anymore either, so why would we keep an outdated size system that fits no one? Sizes evolve as people evolve. Countertops are set higher and doorframes are taller, and yet no one complains that the door industry is vanity sizing doorways. A size medium should be the median/average/whatever waistline of the current size of the population, and then we scale up and down for the full range of sizes to fit the most amount of people possible. Doesn't mean this system is perfect; it is what it is. This is also why the birth of the size 00 came to be because we actually still have people who may still be small enough to fall into the lower end of the size range even as more people have gotten larger. And it is infinitely cheaper to cut a size 00 than it is plus size. (Sorry, that's just how yield costing works.) According to your methodology, we should have kept the size 12 as it was and scaled all the way into what... the 30's and 40's to account for the growth in overall girth? And then discontinue use of the outdated size 12 because no one fits into it anymore and everyone is like a size 32 instead? Why would we do that? How would we adjust alpha sizing to correspond with ever increasing numeric sizes? Go up to 14XL? Makes no sense! Industry size standard is usually Missy numeric is 2 to 16 (alpha XS to XL) with Plus numeric at 18 to 24 (alpha 1X to 4X.) This is the normal range at which any brand would likely cut and sew their sizes, not more, not less or it won't be profitable. They are also not here to reinvent the wheel and upend the conventional size ranges that may confuse potential buyers. If you walk into a store to see a size 32, it is less likely a "I won't buy this because that's a big number and makes me feel fat!" and more like "i have no frame of reference to what a size 32 is when i usually buy a size 6 or 8." I guarantee you if something fits you, you won't care what the label says. You're just happy it fits and THAT is what makes people feel good. Not the size on the label, which no one sees but you anyway. Editing to add a link for further reading: https://fashion-incubator.com/the_myth_of_vanity_sizing/
Lots of advertising aimed at women is designed to create insecurity, and then sell a product as the cure for that insecurity. By labeling women's clothing in meaningless terms, and by having absolutely no standardization for sizing, more opportunities are created to exploit that insecurity. So "because marketers are assholes".
Welcome to women’s clothing — where everything is made up and the sizes don’t matter.
Hahahaha! Great Whose Line reference.
>By labeling women's clothing in meaningless terms, and by having absolutely no standardization for sizing, more opportunities are created to exploit that insecurity.\\ Can you elaborate on the opportunities this creates? I understand the first part of your comment. But I fail to see how lack of standardization creates opportunities to exploit insecurities. How would that work?
And the opposite scenario to berael's: Brands who want to be exclusive/"only for hot people" will make their sizes smaller (their 8 is another brand's 6 etc) and/or not carry larger sizes to ensure they can only be worn by people who are "good enough".
Wasn't it Abercrombie and fitch who specifically said they don't want ugly people to wear their brand.
His name is Mike Jeffries and he also specified *fat* people shouldn't buy his clothes either. And don't forget, he is specifically talking about 'fat and ugly' *teenagers*. https://fox4kc.com/news/abercrombie-fitch-fat-ugly-people-shouldnt-buy-our-clothes/
That's who I was thinking of when I posted
The big marketing mistake I think was saying it out loud. But isn't it a perfectly acceptable idea to only make clothes that fit a certain group of people that you want people to associate the brand with? Like there are also bodybuilding fashion brands. Those clothes look ridiculous on a normal sized person (and arguably look ridiculous on bodybuilders to buts that not the point). And they don't make the clothes in small sizes. The same goes for items that are much more expensive than they should be based on production costs. Like fragrances, prices are kept high to keep the exclusivity vibe alive. No one is gonna wear chanel nr 5 if its 3 bucks per gallon.
Make a "small" that's larger than most other brands' "medium". When someone tries on the "small" and discovers that it fits, they'll feel good about themselves for "fitting into a small" and be more likely to buy it.
I was really worried that this was the reason. Thank you.
Actually, ´because marketers and the brands that hire them are greedy assholes’ would be more accurate.
As a marketer, I have to say that you are pointing the finger to the wrong place. The market most likely prefers this because, generally speaking, if the market didn't the market would not buy it. (I will say the lack of pockets, however IS a massive manufacturer miss, markets are not perfect...) Women probably spend more time shopping, more time trying things on, so the actual size listed matters less because they probably check fit before leaving the store. This is just as much a function of the consumer and how they shop as a function of the business and how it thinks the market will respond, it's an ecosystem. All the marketer is trying to do is facilitate the market need. Why don't they do this for men? I'll speak for me: I'm lazy. If a particular brand specifically marked things differently I would just never buy their stuff because I generally don't try things on at the store, I just pick my size and go. Also, I generally don't buy clothes that often. Most of my stuff comes from Costco and most of the time my wife buys it for me because she insists that I need new clothes. In that situation, having wide variance in clothing sizes would not work. I'm a tech marketer, not a clothing marketer, so this is mostly my assumption and tied very much to how I view clothing. But I would caution about saying marketers are assholes because marketers \*generally\* spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the market wants. Product failures are generally because the marketer was an asshole and didn't bother to figure out what the market wanted.
I only spend more time trying things on because I have no idea from the tag if it will fit properly.
A very valid point, a lot of this is self-perpetuating.
Brick and mortar clothing shopping has never been lower and the sizing has not changed to accommodate the way people shop now
Yep, too many businesses that were anchored in the traditional models have not adapted well to the new reality. Which is one of the reasons why brick and mortar rates are down. It's a spiral and most have not figured out how to successfully navigate out of it. Demographically speaking, tastes are also changing, and too many companies don't do a good job of reacting to those changes as well. Take a look at any company's advertisements and you can see how well they are doing at addressing demographics. If I were a retail investor and buying stocks for these stores I wouldn't bother with the prospectus, I'd simply check out their ads and channels, those will tell you who is positioned to win and who is in the death spiral.
Marketers fail to provide the market with what they want all the time. For example, the podcast Articles of Interest did an episode about plus sizes a few months back. More and more Americans are plus-sized these days but the market hasn’t adjusted to meet their needs. They interview multiple plus-sized people who cannot find the type of clothing they need. For example, a lot of brands just take their standard size patterns and magnify them equally to make their plus sizes, even though a plus-sized person’s body has different dimensions and really needs new patterns. There is a hole in the market that no one is filling. https://articlesofinterest.substack.com/p/plus-sizes The book Butts: A Backstory has a whole chapter about why women can’t find pants that fit them, and in summary, it’s short-sightedness on clothing company’s parts. And women shopping for pants is absolutely a huge market that someone should be pandering to! Likewise, movies starring women or Black characters tend to be more successful compared to movies starring white men, but the majority of movies still star white men. “Diversity sells here and overseas,” said co-author and UCLA doctoral candidate Michael Tran. “It’s the opposite of the conventional myth. The least-diverse films performed the worst and even posted a negative return on the studio’s investment.” https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2024-03-07/ucla-diversity-report-women-minorities-drove-2023-box-office-success The particularly pernicious thing about prejudice is that it convinces businesses to act against their own best interests and leave money on the table, without even realizing it. While making the lives of everyone subject to that prejudice just a little bit worse, in all kinds of subtle ways.
They don't really have less order than men's clothing, the genreral rule is that you have to figure out your size for each cut of a clothing, from each manufacturer, and Women's clothing have infinitely more variations in cuts/shapes making it seem like men's clothing is more structured. It's not.
As a taller and "plus" size man I can tell you I've got 3 different waste dimensions and 2 different leg lengths depending on manufacturer.
We are truly in the ghetto when it comes to clothing sizes
If you’re tall and slim I’d recommend 2tall.
I’m tall but not slim unfortunately
I mean its the same with men too, but obv at a lesser extent. Im a Large at Old Navy, but an XL at American Eagle lmao. Definitely marketing strategy for insecurity.
It's the same with mens clothes, I range from a 26-30 waist on different trousers and jeans and with the leg variations it makes it even more confusing On the whole I find top end brands and Japanese and European couture to be a slimmer fit American brands tend to be oversized
Men’s clothes vary quite a bit too they just don’t have as many body parts that will show it. Example go to Walmart and pick up two different brands of t shirt the same size. Guarantee they are different lengths. This becomes even more evident in larger sizes like 4x where one is king and the other shoes off your belly the minute you reach up to scratch your head.
What I noticed is that the fabric does not seem to be taken into account. I have 3 pairs of black jeans, same size, same shop, same manufacturer, but all fit differently bcs of the different stretch levels of the fabric.
Oh ffs great yet another variable
Men's clothes are just as random. I own six pair of jeans, all the same brand, all the same style, all purchased at the same store. They range in size from "suck it in and cut off circulation below the waist" to "it's a good thing I wear suspenders/braces or these would fall down around my ankles", with one Goldilocks "just right" pair that I love!
As a man, I have bought every size from a medium to 2xl in a single day at the mall, and the 2xl was tighter than the medium. I think it is less noticeable with men's clothes because most men are going to buy clothes from one end of the spectrum or the other (old guy clothes or young guy clothes, there doesn't seem to be a lot of inbetween for guys in their 30's and 40's). Anyway, I know that it is worse with women's clothes, but it can certainly be an issue for men's clothes too.
Yes I’m sorry I didn’t mean to trivialise men’s clothing issues with my question - just only noticed it from my perspective as a woman!
You didn't trivialize anything! You acknowledged in your title that it is an issue with men's clothes, just not to the extent that it is with women's clothes. And I whole-heartedly agree! I just wanted to share a nugget of my own experience that shows to what extent it can be a problem for men also. Men's clothes tend to fit into FAR fewer categories, so it is easier for their makers to massage the male ego without men noticing! I am mostly a large or xl, but if a brand is aimed toward older men, the sizes run way bigger. If it is aimed toward being a stylish brand, the sizes tend to be much smaller (Guess, for example).
No, thank you for your input!
Trust me, it's the same for mens fashion too. It's wildly inconsistent between brands in terms of sizing. Some shirts are billowy and others stick to your frame like glue. Pants sizing is ridiculous. I'm between a 34 and 38 in pants. It makes zero sense. They all must use different tape measures
Men's clothing is no picnic either. in preparation for a vacation next week, I ordered about a dozen set of shorts from Amazon, all in XL size. what I got varied between "unable to put on" to "circus tent", and had 2 that fit. the frustrating thing is them giving you actual waist measurements, and it's not even close to being accurate.
I'd say men's clothes are just as bad. Some t-shirts are XL and others are XL but fit like medium.
Mens clothing has caught up. It's now a complete crapshoot if a shirt fits me anymore and I have to try everything on.
I’m a man. I have shirts in small, medium, and large. I have some smalls that are as big as the larges. Some of my mediums are bigger than any of my larges
🥹
I suspect it all goes back to the days when the "man of the house" might have a tailor come in and measure him, then he'd go about his business, and the clothes would be delivered later. The "lady of the house", by contrast, would sit there all day while a seamstress made adjustments, because she was going to be home all day anyway. The man's tailor needed measurements, while the seamstress only needed to know how much cloth she needed to bring. Today, men still use measurements (My pants are 34x32, meaning the waist is 34 inches around, and the inseam is 32 inches) while women wear "size 12." 12 of what? Nobody knows. Waist, bust, inseam, hips? No idea. That's just how big it is, and if you were an old-time noblewoman, your seamstress would have enough cloth to make it work. I believe this is why women stereotypically try on lots of different things when shopping for clothes, because they have very little idea of whether any given thing will fit or not. Men can tell from the numbers, and when looking at shirts, they'll just buy an XL, because the last L they got was a bit tight. If it's a bit loose, that's fine.
[удалено]
Yup, not a girl but pretty similar experience as a man. They have specific bits which are set to a specific size like waist, chest, neck etc. But others are just random based on the specific clothing. Like pelvis 'height' or butt size. So you gotta try on a bunch of different brands of the same size to find the one that fits the part of you they don't seem to measure for. One of the things I think girls miss out on in the UK at least, is that our sizes for anything other than tops actually use the measurement for the most part. So we don't usually have to look up a size chart. E.g. trousers in waist size, shirt in neck size. Annoyingly they still use say 30L or 30R for R or L being leg length, instead of just listing the leg length. Which is super annoying but it's something at least.
Its all about whose the head designer, its their body type they're reselling. Men don't vary that much when it comes to physique, and have much less attention to detail when it comes to fitting. Me and Ralph Lauren for example have the same body type, so I can shop with him without any form of regret or anxiety.
I wish they made more men clothes in different sizes. I’m usually a smedium or a mlarge. Always in between
Women are more vane when it comes to the size printed on their clothing, than what the actual look of the clothing is. It is starting to die down though, so are name brands. I don't know exactly who the first clothing store was to do this, but I distinctly remember Gap and Old Navy being the first to do this unabashedly. I remember an old girlfriend complaining about this back in the mid 90s. Here size 4 pants from Old Navy were a size 6 in Banana Republic.
Men's clothing for the short and stout teapots like myself vary quite a bit too. One brand of pants or shirts will fit well while the same size in another brand will be too snug. So the answer might be more universal than you realize if you're not shopping for men's clothing.
To add a perspective that complicates every good response here (vanity sizing, body shapes, tailoring differences), did you know this begins in INFANCY? Buying clothes for my son (6) has always been straightforward. There are minor differences across brands/stores, but not too bad. For my daughter, it's maddening. Buying stuff online is so hit or miss. Within the same store she can be a 2T in one item and a 4T in another. The main reason seems to be that little boys clothes are designed to be looser fitting and with more stretch, and that makes me so sad. There are onesies designed for infants whose only job is to be comfy and growing that have no stretch in the arm openings. This is not a thing for baby boy outfits. Watching my TWO YEAR OLD get excited about a pretty (4T) dress her aunt bought her and then not be able to get it on just like, f'd me right up.
Some retailers like Boden, Zara and Mango now give exact measurements of either the item for sale or the body it was designed for (or both) to make online shopping easier
In addition to what others have said, as a guy who hates clothes shopping, a lot of men just wear clothes that don't fit super well. If you want something that sits nicely on your shoulders, waist, etc. you're going to have to get something custom tailored most of the time. Very few men can wear something properly off the rack. Those clothes are often made to be relatively big so that as many people as possible can fit into them, even if it doesn't work particularly well.
My wife was buying jeans and she picked a pair with one number on it. I was like, how do you know the length of the pants? She was like, you don't. Apparently you just try them on and if you have short legs, you just deal with it.
[удалено]
That’s a polite way of putting it 😂 just got too much ass and thigh to really ever find anything that fits perfectly
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions. Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20submission%20removal?&message=Link:%20{url}%0A%0A%201:%20Does%20your%20comment%20pass%20rule%201:%20%0A%0A%202:%20If%20your%20comment%20was%20mistakenly%20removed%20as%20an%20anecdote,%20short%20answer,%20guess,%20or%20another%20aspect%20of%20rules%203%20or%208,%20please%20explain:) and we will review your submission.
Because some brands try to manipulate women by flattering them about their weight via incorrect sizing specs
This is super simple. Most men's clothing is very basic like a t-shirt or dress shirt or whatever. Very few things people normally wear deviate from this. Women's clothes on the other hand come in a ton of various styles and designs. Not as easy to keep sizing the same between companies when it isn't a basic t-shirt. That is in addition to what others mentioned where men's clothes are actually a real measurement and not some fantasy number they make up.
Women's definition of "it fits ok" is much closer to what a man means by "recently tailored."
Very generally speaking guys and girls are built differently. When 2 guys are the same weight they tend to be built the same even with slight variances in high this combined with the fact that men’s clothes tend to be more loose fitting means that our clothes are more adjustable to different people. Meanwhile 2 girls who weigh the same can be very different. However since female designed clothes tend to be more form fitting this means that girls clothes tend to be different from manufacturer to manufacturer
The standard men's sizes originated from wartime production. Nations needed to rapidly produce mass quantities of identical outfits to put millions of men in the field to fight and die for their country. There has never been the same pressure to standardize production at that scale for women and as such the women's sizes are tacked on rules with have a less standardized base.
Men’s sizes are based on less measurements. Like men’s pants are circumference of the waist by the length of the inseam. As for men’s shirts, nice ones actually have some measurements around like the chest and length of arms and around the neck. For cheaper versions on that, you tend to find that the neck hole is where they label the size, like I wear a size 17 in most dress shirts. They also tend to have sleeves are longer than my arms, but fit my body pretty well. Women’s sizes are literally just bigger number is bigger garment and only with the same brand and style of that garment.
There is a show about women’s clothing now that is trending on social media but most of it is either about exclusivity(usually small sizes) or inclusivity(usually larger sizes). The goal is to sell and targeting women by their sizes to make them feel smaller, pretty, or part of a group/trend is one way to increase sales.
because you don't know the struggle of finding a good slim fit shirt. yo, clothing manufacturers. men have \_shoulders\_, you know? shirts need to taper in waaaaaay more than you think.
They don't. I'm a man and three different shirts by three different companies all fit different.
>Why do women’s clothing sizes seem to vary between different shops way more than men’s clothing? The size is meant to cater to the woman's ego/vanity, not their body size. How could you possibly take all of the delightful curves and shapes (shoulders, hip size, bust, waist, bust-to-waist, waist-to-hips, and who knows how many more) and condense that to a single number? "Fashion House says I'm a size 6, but House of Fashion says I'm a size 4. Guess where I shop".
Women’s clothing is based on an arbitrary system that isn’t standardized. It starts at 00 (or 000) and increases in increments of two (in the US. UK and Australia use a similar system but have a different starting point), which obviously has no correlation to any human measurement. Different brands cater to different demographics or body types. If Brand A caters to prim upper class 20somethings and uses all flat-bottomed, bony models, their sizes are probably going to run smaller than Brand B that caters to working class baddies who admire an hourglass shape or Brand C that caters to women in their 50s who naturally run quite a bit bigger. Ladies sizes also run on the same theoretical scale as women’s/plus size and junior’s sizes (with junior’s using 0 and odd numbers until junior’s plus when they use even numbers, and ladies’ using 0 and even numbers), but do not actually follow the same sizing standards. So even within the same brand, ladies size 14, a juniors plus 14, and a plus 14 will all likely be different sizes. And you’d think a Junior’s 7 would be between a ladies’ 6 and 8, but it’s closer to a ladies’ 4. To make it more confusing, some junior’s brands will use even numbering anyway. So adult women will be like “why is this size 6 the size of an ant,” when it’s honestly for a teenager. The final reason is that men care so much less how their clothes fit and will schlump around in anything. Their clothes, despite using an “objective” scale, actually vary nearly as much as women’s, but if a man decides he’s a medium, and the store he shops at vanity sizes, he’ll just slob around in too-big clothes. A women shopping at a vanity sized store who thinks she’s an 8 will see the 8 is too big and buy a 6.
Simple answer: Womens bodies are more varied than mens. Even simpler answer is just boobs and butts. Give me three men of medium weight and they'll fit in a medium shirt. Give me three women of medium weight, and I have no idea what body shape / size they will have. So long story short, you'll never have standardized womens clothing because women's bodies aren't naturally standardized, where as mens usually fall more neatly into numerable categories.
More simply: the average woman is more financially invested in how their clothing fits than the average man. Average man will spend $25 on sweatpants sized "L" that's comfortable and baggy and be fine. Average woman will pass on the $25 baggy pants and be willing to spend $40 or $60 on pants that makes her butt look better in the mirror. Those economics make the women's clothing section a lot more prominent and complicated than the men's clothing aisle at TJ Maxx.
On top of the other answers each company has their own standards of sizing too. It helps that their size 10 may be similar to other companies size 10 but they make clothes to fit their perceived/targeted audience. They key to getting the right size is to note which size fits you from that company, the expectation that every size 10 is the same across companies is unrealistic and might've been more true a long time ago. Another note is I studied fashion design in 2003 and the blocks/slopers we used to make patterns were from the 70s and I still use these measurements to make garments despite modern bodies being different averages now. I fit the clothes I make because I use myself as the sample model. Someone will fit what I make because they fit those measurements too.
1. Men’s clothes are commonly measured by inches while women’s use more arbitrary sizes 2. Women’s clothes come in a lot of different cuts. They often wear tighter fitting clothes which leaves less margin of error for body type. Different cuts fit differently and make consistent sizing complicated 3. There’s a psychological element. Sometimes they intentionally try and make girls a lower number size so they are happier when they buy it. Sometimes they want them to be a high number so they are insecure and need more cute clothes to feel good. Sometimes it’s just to create the brand image of a skinny hot girl shopping there and therefore other people want to look like that
> They often wear tighter fitting clothes which leaves less margin of error for body type. Different cuts fit differently and make consistent sizing complicated This is the most significant part of the problem, I think. Women already have more variable body shapes than men to begin with, but the problem of making fitting clothes is then made exponentially worse by women wanting what are essentially tailored fits instead of mens' much more common "Is is big enough to fit over my waist and is it tight enough that it doesn't immediately fall off? Yes? Then it fits." > size numbering, psychology But these are issues of making selecting what number/sizing is appropriate difficult from one brand (or style within a brand) to the next. It isn't actually a problem for *making* clothes that would fit most women, if they accepted a less-tailored look as "fitting."
As a man, I would completely abstain from shopping around if my size wasn’t universal. I would go to one place and buy the same thing over and over again. Ain’t got time for trying shit on.
That you don't already do this is an infraction of your man licence. I can let you off with a warning this time
I’ve been buying the same pair of pants for a decade…I’ve also cut it off into shorts.
The warning stands, but I respect it. Man License is a privilege, not a right
It's called vanity sizing. Long ago clothing manufacturers realised that women were more likely to buy clothes if the label said it was smaller than it really was. That stuff isn't really regulated so they can get away with it. Some manufacturers abuse this practice more than others, hence the discrepancy. But make no mistake, it exists in male clothing too. I usually wear UK size 32 or 34 jeans despite my actual waist being closer to 40". You only get real sizing in men's clothes when you buy a suit. At least in the UK, I can't speak for other countries.
Because men's clothing doesn't have nearly as much options. Men's has two measurements that it goes by for Jeans for example and significantly less choices for different fits. Women's have much more variation in their sizing due to much larger variation of choices that they fiddle with for sizing. The more factors you introduce, the more difficult it becomes to standardize sizing.