"Ladies."

Seriously. That's what it is-- check your local department stores, that's what the departments are labeled. You are a lady, or you are a woman. Ladies are within the standard of small sizes, women are too big.

All kinds of social commentary there.

Don't forget "Misses".

I'm also sort of confused by these jean-like leggings that appear to be regular boot-cut jeans, but what do I know?

Really? Fascinating - I'm in the UK, and I'd never heard that one before even reading US bloggers.

Very skinny crossdressers, maybe? :P

I recently worked in retail, in a well-known women's clothing store that carries up to US size 14. One day a woman came into the store and stomped up to me. "Do you have women's sizes?" She demanded.

"We carry size 0 through 14." I said.

"NO." She said. "WOMEN'S sizes. I guess you don't." Then she turned around and stomped out.

I think it's abhorrent that larger women can't find decent clothes and I always felt terrible telling size 16s that we didn't carry their size. However, this whole "real women have curves" and "women's sizes" thing is silly and divisive. Also, if you don't like a store policy, don't harangue the poor sales associate. Do they look like they're in a decision-making position?

Not used like that in the UK I don't think. We have "plus" sizes, and an advert may well say "no available in plus sizes" or "larger sizes" or "up to a 20" or something. But "women's"? On an ad I'd assume that meant "we made men's jeans, but now we make jeans for women too" I think.

The genesis of sizing in female clothing can be traced back to the sizing by age for early RTW and patterns (end of the 19th century, early 20th century). That is a size 10 is for a 10 year old. A size 14 is for a 14 year old. Sizes, in patterns at least, for adult female clothing ran from Age 12 to Age 18 and then were available in bust sizes for bust 38 inches to 54 inches. It could be that women's patterns were available in size Age 10 or smaller and sizes larger than 54 inches, but I have not seen them.

The same rule was used for male clothing.

So sizes ran something like this: 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, to 36 months and/or 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, to 7 years, then 8 years, 10 years, 12 years to 18 years, sometimes 20 years. I don't know what the sizes for men were in inches.

In patterns, at least, I speculate that so many of the small sizes have survived because there were very few women who were the size of a 12 year old girl; the patterns were not used.

It's "Misses" in the stores I've seen, which has a distinctly teenage/young adult feel to it. These are the clothes for "fashionable" people, e.g., Miley Cyrus's line. (Not saying I agree with what constitutes "fashionable.") In the "Women's" section, the clothes are decidedly more "frumpy" or styled much more conservatively. The same items of clothing are not even available. (Bear in mind, here, that I'm mostly referring to Wal-Mart and Target, since I don't have money for more expensive stores--and since those expensive stores don't sell things I can wear, anyway. v_v )

In short, the cooler, younger clothing is for thinner people and the frumpy, older clothing is for "rounded" people.

It feels like a conflation of ageism and sizeism. If you're young, you're thin. If you're old(er), you're overweight. Somehow, I'm feeling that this ties into the infantilization of women--the younger women are, the more "beautiful" women are.

Also, the models on the displays in the Misses section all look like sexualized teens. I think all of this subtly (or not-so-subtly) reinforces that message that if you've got a uterus, you need to stop aging at 17/18, sexualize yourself, and stay within the spectrum of smaller sizes.

So, to answer the question, if you're not a "woman," you're a sexualized teen--which is apparently preferable.

This is not something I've really seen in Canada either.

I agree with Lady Instructor about the whole thing being silly and divisive. I understand that larger and smaller women may be looking for cuts and styles that suit their body type, but can't we distinguish between them in some way that reflects either option as normal?

I too have never come across this in the UK, except in sewing patterns - see here http://www.simplicitynewlook.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=52 for an example. As well as different size patterns, there are patterns designed for different body shapes - Misses, Misses Petite, Women's and Women's Petite. 'Misses' patterns (pretty much all the patterns they make) are for 'a figure that is well-proportioned and well-developed in all body areas. Bodices are designed for a B Cup size' while 'Women's' are for 'A larger, more fully mature female figure.'. Women's patterns tend to have a wider size range, but they aren't all plus sizes. From what Skada said it sounds like the Misses/Women's distinction is similar in some US clothes shops.

Actually, I just checked and I was wrong - Women's patterns do only come in plus sizes now. Interesting, as they now have a Plus sizes section in their catalogue, which suggests people aren't used to the 'Women's' category any more.

As a college kid, the first time I went out shopping for clothes on my own in an unfamiliar store, I spent at least a half hour going over and over the racks in the Women's section of the department store. Unable to find anything in my size (then about a 10), I got frustrated and left. Ah, the way my mother laughed and laughed at me when I irritatedly explained "But I was looking in the women's section!" So I've always thought this was a very stupid, and arbitrary, division of female people's clothes.

Maybe I am missing this in the stores I shop in (in Canada). To my recollection women's clothes are just women's clothes, usually size 0-14. After that it is plus size.

I like to shop in second-hand or thrift stores, but I have to be in a very patient mood if I want to shop for a pair of jeans, since all the size categories tend to get hung together. A size 8 in one brand can be the same as a size 12 in another. It's not uncommon for me to try on jeans listed from a size 8 to a size 14 trying to find something that fits. That or I just head to the "mens" section.

I've got plenty to say on the size-naming subject... but I can't get over trying to wrap my mind around the "jean-like stretch legging" idea. they're like the spork of pants.

I was under the impression that anything else was for girls or "petite". But then again, sizes really are dependent on the brand anyway. I can wear a size 16 or 18 in anything but whatever it is the Walmart carries ( I haven't shopped there in ages)...their sizes run small.

When I was a kid (early-mid 90's) looking at ads and catalogs lying around in my grandma's house I thought I had cracked the code as some assumed journey through life. After girl sizes you wear "Juniors" in ur teens. Graduate high school and wear more adult clothing in "Misses" (unmarried young presumably thin women's sises). You get married at some point and when you get pregnant there's Maternity. After baby you wear "Women's" because post pregnancy you've proved ur a woman, but now ur fat hence the large sizes.

I also didn't understand why the Plus size catalogs were obviously for large women but all the models looked like they were my size (8-10). How could they model jeans that didn't start until size 16W?!

What I think is worth mentioning is WHY we call them "Misses" and "Women's"... Since 'Miss' refers to unmarried women, it sounds like they reserve the "Women's" title for women who have been married. I think the logic probably comes from the idea that having a child/family leads to weight gain, so they would need larger clothes. Unmarried women obviously haven't had kids, so they're still nice and skinny. (*gag*)

Additionally, in response to other people's comments about how frumpy Plus size clothes are - I'm pretty sure that manufacturers assume that all larger women want to hide their curves. It's a sad assumption... So much so that many women fall into that trap. I had to talk my mom into trying on some more form fitting clothes, because she always wanted to wear the largest sizes possible to cover her belly. And this woman weighs as much as me (I'm a size 10), and she is most definitely not a Plus size...

Huh.

I would've assumed women's sizes meant the 0, 2, 4, 6, etc. size rating, rather than men's sizes, i.e 32x32, 40x36, 32x34, etc.

What's even better is that in many retail stores, the plus size section is segregated from the "regular" sizes by the MATERNITY section. And Target adds a nice little twist by sandwiching their pathetically meager plus section between maternity and workout wear. Thanks, Target!

I appreciate the premise of the main post, but I don't find it too much different an issue than other woman's ad points of "plus size". Plus what? Or a males "husky". Has anyone been to a movie in the last 30 years and experienced the Seinfeldian popcorn sizes (large is small jumbo is still small and so on). For me, at least, is is simply another example of society not holding media and corporations accountable for just about anything - not to create a nanny state but to have some measure of accountability to the truth and to anyones (male female or any living thing for that matter) sensibilities. They're selling sizzle and not steak and the populace just keeps lapping up garbage instead of being as outraged as they should (I think). Thats how I respond to many of the posts here that relate to advertising. The society here is doomed without some major change. When people abuse you, regardless of the issue, stop supporting them. If it happens enough, they are gone. Sorry for the rant.

I think 'women' means not teenage girls.

Australia has children's clothes and women's clothes. There are no 'misses' or 'ladies' size ranges. Clothes marketed as for teenage girls use the same style of numbering as those for older women.

My experience in US stores is Juniors, Misses, and Women's sections in department stores. I live in Canada now and most of the plus size sections I see are called "Above Average."

This has got me thinking about the mall clothing store 5-7-9, which was a trendy place to shop when I was a teenager (in the early 90s) and there was a certain elitism to say you shopped there because they only sold up to size 9 (i.e., no fatties allowed). By today's standards, most teenage girls would probably not want to be a size 9. I looked at their site and today they sell sizes 00-9. I remember going there with a very petite friend in high school and she couldn't find size 1 jeans -- the smallest they had in most styles was 3. It's kind of funny that due to vanity sizing, this size-elite store has actually increased their size range.

I'm glad you explained women's sizes meant plus sizes, because all I could think was "It makes sense that pants come in women's and men's sizes"
In Canada it's usually "plus sizes". I've never seen "women's sizes" to mean plus. This might be an interesting area to explore for your international readers!

Splitting up clothing into age categories that correspond with style and cut is ridiculous. I struggled to buy juniors' jeans for years until I finally figured out that, despite being a teenager, I had moderately large hips, and so many juniors' jeans were cut to be narrow in the hips. Misses' jeans fit me much better. I wish they would split them up roughly by body type instead.

The "women's"=plus sizes phenomenon reminds me a lot of the practice of calling adult women girls; since women's attractiveness is often defined by youthfulness, the word "woman" becomes a euphemism for things that society associates with aging (wrinkles, weight gain, and other so-called "unattractive" attributes). That seems to be what's happening here, where it's being used as a euphemism for "fat" (but your mileage may very on what constitutes "fat," of course).

You people think too much, I am 5'5 and I am a size 5-7, and I feel huge!!! So I would think that anything over a size twelve would be "plus-size," and yes, that does mean that you should maybe hit the gym. Just a thought. Don't get mad, because I am calling it as I see it, be honest with yourself.

Justine 11:38 pm on March 19, 2010 | # | Reply

You people think too much, I am 5′5 and I am a size 5-7, and I feel huge!!! So I would think that anything over a size twelve would be “plus-size,” and yes, that does mean that you should maybe hit the gym. Just a thought. Don’t get mad, because I am calling it as I see it, be honest with yourself.
==========

LOL - that was nice! A bit of change around here. Get off those lazy behinds and exercise, just saying! ha! This blog is so heavily monolithic at times...

And then I really liked the "you people think too much."

To me, unfortunately, one of life's unsolvable paradoxes. If you think just a little, you run an enormous risk of being nothing but an ignorant, irresponsible twat. If you spend a lot of time thinking, you start to overdose in intellectualizing everything and, somewhere in the process, life gets grayer and dimmer and offers traps of its own.

Here in Germany they sometimes have 'teens' or 'young fashion' (meaning, basically, pants got no room to accommodate hips) and 'women' (regular sizes, but 'carrot-shaped legs' & frumpy). You can't win.

And every brand or shop seems to invent its own sizing system or interpretation thereof. Sometimes I am an S, sometimes an M, sometimes an L. Sometimes I'm a EU 36, 38, 40, but if the sizes are French, I have to buy one bigger, two for Italy and Spain. At H&M, I wear a 34 T-Shirt, but 38 or 40 pants (WTF?). Or I'm a UK 10. Or a US 6-8. Or… oh, well. Can you spell e-r-r-a-t-i-c?

Please, can I have labelling in inches/cm, please? Can't be that difficult, no? For now, I've stopped looking at the tags and just make an educated guess about what seems to be reasonable for my actual size. (Also has the added benefit that my (ex-)ED-brain doesn't go into hysterics because in some shops, I am a size larger than usual. Talk about irrational.)

Sizes in the US run from 0mos-Toddler sizes, then to Girls' sizes, then to Junior (sometimes known as Junior Misses), Misses/ladies, and then to Womens', and sometimes Maternity gets its own section.

This is pretty much just so that clothes of different sizes and styles can be separated in a department store. Some stores, like Old Navy, have all sizes pretty much on the same rack, from 0-whatever the largest size is, but this only works because they have the same outfit, just in different sizes. Many large department stores have completly different styles based on size - Juniors are "younger" styles, and often fit tighter and are more revealing than Misses or Womens'. Women's are sometimes just larger versions of Misses clothes, but not always. Only Specialty store like Lane Bryant seem to understand that just because a woman might have a large bust, she might not want to wear a tent, or just because her hips are wider than her waist, she still needs pants to fit the smaller waist.

I think those who came up with the terms to categorize clothes though "Big and Tall" would not appeal to female shoppers, so they came up with the headings they use now.

Sizing annoys the HELL out of me because it's just incredibly inconsistent from one manufacturer to another. I can only speak for "plus" sizing since I've been a size 18 since I WAS 18 (I'm 6'1", and as a matter of fact, I do work out. I'm a firefighter.) It's disheartening to shop for clothes, frankly.

And the sizeist comments above are unhelpful.