Amy at Feminist Reprise has a really interesting post about shopping while fat when she was trying to buy clothes for an interview. Even with the help of readers she couldn’t get anything suitable for less than $300:
Add to that the cost of my time (and Rebecca’s, and Heidi’s, and Pony’s) to do all this research. That’s for one outfit, for one interview. All of you who, if you had to, could trot down to Ross Dress for Less, TJ Maxx, Old Navy, The Gap, or best of all, a Goodwill in a ritzy neighborhood**, and find clothes in your size that would tell an employer that you’re a responsible, socially acceptable, employable adult–how much do you think you’d spend on an interview outfit? Anything close to $300? No? That’s thin privilege.
I think Amy has misnamed the problem. I’ve written in different ways why I find the term thin privilege problematic. But actually it’s not the way Amy uses privilege I disagree with as much as the ‘thin’ part.
Being able to easily buy clothes (and even more so op-shops) is something that many people take for granted. I can wear clothes from enough mainstream stores to make shopping for clothes reasonably easy, but there are lots of places I know I shouldn’t even bother looking in, and so I understand how much harder life would be if I was just a bit larger.
But my friend Betsy, she has real problems buying clothes. She’s small, and her body is an unusual shape. When she had an office job finding appropriate clothes was an expensive nightmare. She couldn’t buy a single pair of work quality trousers, she had to get them made up (luckily WINZ paid ((New Zealand’s social welfare system offers grants to people who are entering employment to buy suitable clothes. )) ). She never found a suitable pair of formal work shoes — they probably don’t exist, and couldn’t be made. Despite this, despite the effort and expense, her manager told her several times that she needed a more professional image. Presumably it never occurred to the manager that this actually involved more than popping down to a ridiculously expensive store and buying more clothes. It never occurred to this manager that the standards she preached wouldn’t be available.
The experience of being able to find clothes that fit reasonably easily and affordably is something that many people take for granted. ((Of course there are other people who could theoretically buy clothes at mainstream stores or op-shops but can’t afford to buy clothes at all. )) To call this ability ‘thin privilege’ ignores the other reasons clothes don’t fit people’s bodies. I think it is really unproductive to divide these experiences — so if Amy is writing the story the reader can buy clothes because of thin privilege, whereas if Betsy was writing the clothes the reader can buy clothes because of able-bodied privilege.
I think it’s really important to name our problems right – and there are plenty of thin people who can’t find clothes that fit them. Those people (and their supporters) should demand that clothes are made for the people who wear them, rather than for profit, ((My banner at that protest would all be about cup-sized shirts and togs.)) and we can all demand that our ability to do work is not judged by an appearance standard that some people will never be able to meet.
Pingback: Sir Humphrey's | Department of Unspin
Pingback: Deth's Journal
The smaller the number of people who have a particular body type, the more expensive and the more difficult-to-find will be the clothes. As you note, fat and thin have little to do with it; small men have a terrible time finding clothes. The Internet has largely solved this problem, at least for people with money, although many people resist this solution because they want to have the clothes on their body before they pay for them.
There are plenty of career paths that don’t require a positive corporate appearance. They are largely entrepreneurial paths where it’s your output that counts, rather than your ability to conform to someone else’s norm. The price of latching on to an existing success rather than creating your own, unfortunately, is often conformity to a norm.
They clothing/fashion industry doesnt make clothes to fit real people. They make clothes that look good on the models, who they refer to as walking hangers.
I’ve noticed an odd size difference from when 1 was 13 to todays sizes. When I was 13 I wore a size1. My daughter is now 13 and she wears a size 5, but is thinner than I was at 13. Size 5’s now are what size 1’s used to be. I dug out an old pair I had in junior high and they were a size 1 and had her try them on( she had an 80’s party to attend). They fit perfectly, like her sizes 5’s do.
WTF is up with that?
I don’t know the location of the posters here.
In San Francisco we have every conceivable body type and size, from Pacific Islanders (who tend to be huge in every dimension) to Vietnamese woman who are little bigger than children. Accordingly, just about every size is available.
It’s a matter of economics, as Robert points out. My Scottish friend who was living in the Netherlands couldn’t buy clothes there, because clothes in European countries tend to be sized for the local tribe, who are rather bigger than she is (!). That’s not because merchants in the Netherlands have it in for the Scots, it’s because they won’t sell very many clothes in small sizes, and so can’t afford to stock them. (Inventory is potentially a large expense.) I thought my friend would faint with delight when we went shopping together here. But San Francisco isn’t necessarily more broad-minded; we just have a lot of different kinds of people here, so it pays to stock a lot of different sizes.
That said, good quality “interview” clothes (depending of course on what job you’re interviewing for, but I’m assuming management, law, like that) tend to be quite expensive for everyone. $300 is quite a bit on the low side, at least here. I certainly wouldn’t expect to spend less than that, and I’m a sort of “ordinary” size. Unless you’re interviewing for something you can wear jeans for. There are more and more stores with plus sizes and the like too, and some of those clothes are quite snazzy. That’s not because everyone here has suddenly seen the light, that’s because there are enough people at those sizes to make it pay.
(The advent of “business casual” of course is only a partial solution, because such “casual” clothes also tend, like the suits they replace, to be expensive (though less so) and available in exactly the same range of sizes.)
If someone wants to unhook the sale and purchase of clothing (or anything else) from what is here called “profit,” then there will have to be some other way for merchants and producers to pay the rent, pay the light bills, pay their workers, and still have some left over for themselves. I don’t know what that arrangement would be, but I’m sure there are a lot of possibilities. What will not work is to demand that stores or factories will operate at a loss because we think that they should be willing to do that for some reason. They’re not.
As Robert correctly points out, if anyone refuses to buy into the model of existing “success,” there are numerous ways to do that, sometimes with spectacularly good results.
pheeno, they’re trying to make buyers feel good about themselves so they’ll buy more clothes. Does it work? Who knows.
I don’t know how it is in New Zealand, but one of the biggest obstacles to buying women’s clothes in the States is that the sizes no longer mean anything (looks like pheeno has noticed this too). I can seriously fit anywhere from a 6 to a 12, and depending on the article or brand, it will all look the same. I agree that it’s not thin privilege (and having worked as a care assistant I know very well about the able bodied part of it), it’s that if your body differs from very stereotypical proportions, you’re screwed – normalcy privilege, maybe? I’m skinny and I know that that grants me some unfair advantages in this world, but trust me, buying clothes isn’t one of them. I have a long torso and wide hips, so if I want a top to not hang weirdly from my nonexistent breasts, it probably won’t cover my whole belly. Try looking professional when even the most modest shirt rides up into a semi-middy.
I don’t want to be too radical here, but you know, making clothes really isn’t all that hard in the last analysis. My daughter makes all her business clothes – suits – because she doesn’t like the way the ones you can buy “hang,” and because she has her own preferences in fabrics. They look fabulous, these suits. I made her wedding dress, and she looked like an angel in it, if I do say so myself.
OK, you need a sewing machine, one time investment, and probably a class or two (or, a friend who sews) but with that equipment plus some time you can have terrific business clothes (or, whatever) that fit you perfectly, in precisely the colors you want. Because hardly anyone wants to go to this much trouble any more, you can in all probability pick up a lightly-used sewing machine for nickels. (In my mother’s generation, nearly every woman could sew, and made some of her own clothes, as a matter of course.)
And don’t tell me my daughter has more time than you do, she works full time and has two toddler children, and she gets issued 24 hours every day just like everyone else.
I realize that this solution will not appeal here….I’m not sure why not. Because it’s easier to complain? But I’ll tell you this. If you and everyone you know decides that the corporate clothes industry isn’t making clothes as they ought to, and you accordingly stop buying that junk they’ll catch on soon enough.
Think globally, act locally.
I suspect this isn’t true. I’ve done a fair amount of shopping in New York, where there are also very diverse bodies, and haven’t been able to find a blouse or shirt that fits me. In fact, the only place in the world where I can get a button-down blouse or shirt that fits more is Bravissimo in the UK. There’s a place in the U.S. that sells bra-sized shirts and blouses for $250, but even they only go up to a 32D, and I’m a 28G. I fit perfectly into Bravissimo’s “8 Really Curvy”, and the most exquisite and beautiful thing about it is that they have a size for people my size with even more gigantic boobs, an “8 Super Curvy.” You could be a friggin’ 28H and be able to buy a shirt that fit at Bravissimo. Can you imagine?
(On the thin privilege thing, Bravissimo only goes up to a UK size 16, which is a US size 14. So you could definitely argue there’s some thin privilege going on here. It may be that plus-sized clothes are cut more generously in the boobs, but it also may be that if you were proportioned like me and wore a US 16, there would be no place in the world where you could find a blouse that fit.)
So riddle me this. If it’s just economics, why is it that Britain can support a chain of high-street shops, located in prime real estate in places like Covent Garden, devoted clothes for women with big boobs, and the U.S. can’t support a single store? I’m confused about the economics of that. The only difference that I can think of is the existence of the “high street” in Britain, so that it’s easier to put a single store in a central location in each city, rather than having to put a separate store in every shopping mall. There are three Bravissimos in London but only one in smaller cities, so that every big-boobed woman in Manchester or Leeds or Newcastle has to go to the city center in order to go to Bravissimo, and that one store can draw from the entire big-boobed population of a reasonably-sized metropolitan area. I don’t know if that model would work as well in the U.S., where shopping tends to be a bit more dispersed. I suspect it would, though, at least in a lot of metropolitan areas.
Anyway, while I obviously take your point, as a thin woman who has a hard time finding “professional” clothes that fit, I do think that this is partly a thin privilege issue. While I really believe that there’s a market for clothes that would fit me, I also know that my body is genuinely outside the normal range, although not that much outside the normal range. Whereas, in the U.S., the *average* woman is plus-sized, and plus-sized women have a hard time finding nice, inexpensive clothes. It’s partly an overall problem with how the fashion industry thinks about women’s bodies and the variation thereof, but I do think there’s something else going on that has to do with thinking that fashionable women are thin and that stores will harm their fashionableness quotient if they carry clothes for women with larger bodies.
I have small boobs, Sally, so I wouldn’t know much about that end of it. I do know that with my waist and hips, some creep in NYC thinks I ought to have bigger boobs than I do, and designs clothes accordingly.
I do know too, however, that no store which is not receiving government or other subsidies can operate for very long without making a profit. In the UK or here or anywhere. If stores are carrying crap at any size (which they indisputably are) then someone is buying that crap (which someone obviously is). In fact you can see that if you look closely at the crowd walking down the streets downtown in any major city. Most of the women, to speak only of the women, look awful. The clothes are for the most part hideous and poorly-made, the colors are unattractive, and nine times out of ten – thin, fat, whatever – they don’t fit properly. Sally and others claim that these clothes are designed to look good only on clothes hangers and on people who are built like clothes hangers (aka models) and she’s right. On real people they look awful.
They’ll keep doing this, the stores, the designers, the manufacturers, just so long as we let them get away with it by buying this crap, and no longer.
My gf in college (short torso, giant boobs) used to make her own clothes, until she was shamed out of it by her friends. Clothing is pretty twisted up in people’s minds; this was one of the most progressive schools in the country, but it was apparently intolerable that someone wouldn’t participate in the fashion machine.
Actually, the making clothes thing does appeal to me. What worries me is that I’m horrendously inept with my hands. My first attempt at knitting ended in tears, no joke.
trillian, reading looked hard the first time you tried it, yes? As did walking, if we go back far enough. But you didn’t give up, you practiced, and look, now it’s easy!
You start with something simple, you take a class. You learn to go slow and to cut and measure carefully. You learn how to make a sewing machine do what you want it to do (mostly, sew in a straight line). Not everyone can learn to design haute couture clothing on the fly – there’s probably some talent component to that. But anyone who is coordinated enough to type, even hunt-and-peck – I see you can manage that – can learn to sew. Remember, no one is asking for hand-stitching. The machine does most of the work.
BTW, the link to the original post is broken. Here’s a working one.
Another alternative: shop online.
I notice that Bravissimo has an online store. As do many other specialty shops. Most if not all these places will allow you to return stuff if it turns out not to fit, so you can experiment with whatever off-the-wall sizing system the particular site is using. (trillian is right on about sizes.)
I don’t want to sound like some kind of crusader here, but I think we ought to Take Back the Clothes! Stop letting these clothing shops and designers dictate to us, not by bitching on some blog, but by denying them their pellet by not buying the stuff. Just Say No. Don’t buy it, don’t give them your money until they figure out how to make clothing that fits properly, whatever your body size.
I have a long, long response to this, but I’m in the middle of something now so can’t properly address it. But I did want to point out one thing – using the term ‘thin privilege’ may not cover all body type/clothing issues, true. However, thin women with ‘weird’ bodies who can’t find appropriate clothes are not stigmatized just for being thin. People who are considered ‘fat’ by society ARE stigmatized, and the clothing issue is just one aspect of that. So i do feel that ‘thin prvilege’ is a legitimate term.
Oh, I wasn’t denying the existence of thin privilege, and I’m sorry if it read that way. I just agree with Maia that the clothing sizes thing hits all body types.
Susan, you might’ve inspired a new hobby here (I’m actually quite a good typist!), thank you :)
Have none of you heard of Lane Bryant? They sell US sizes 14 to 28 and have stores in practically every mall in the US and an online presence for those of you not in the US – it’s just one stores – so sometimes buying things out of season can be limited in selection – but they carry a wide range of very casual to very professional – there prices can be a bit high – but for a suit or other professional clothes – they’re really not to bad. And they have coupons out about once a month if you sign up on their website to be on the mailing list.
Plus – that’s where Stacy and Clinton on ‘What Not to Wear’ always take plus sized women to buy stylish bigger clothes – so you know they’re not just tacky mu-mus like some plus size stores.
I am a size 22 or 24, depending on the cut, and I have never paid $300 for an outfit in my life, including my wedding dress.
Nowadays (thanks in large measure to fat activists) there are plenty of stores, both in strip malls and online, with reasonably-priced outfits for large women, including “interview” outfits.
I think the last pants-jacket combo I bought was something like $65.
Issue: Can’t find something that fits because clothing isn’t available off the rack for one’s body type, and/or it’s only available if one has a lot of money to spend. Disagrees with the premise this is “thin priviledge” What is it, then?
I think it’s classism.
Even though everyone knows designers make clothing to fit “clothes hangers”, and then make another line that comes closer to fitting the other 99.9% of people who need clothing, which actually only fits maybe the next 15% of people who need clothing, that leaves the other 85.99%, that is, all the rest of us.
In the last ten years I’ve seen some great strides in positive images AND clothing that is plus-size, but lately I’ve had a hard time finding this great clothing. What happened?
The clothing industry, en mass, decided they wanted a larger profit margin more than they wanted to make decent clothes. Just about everything is made off-shore, which usually means a fraction of the cost. Not that wanting to make a profit is new, meerly the decision makers are just unsually greedy and irresponsible. In short, all the work my grandparents’ generation did to create a livable wage through unionizing has just, basically, gone down the toilet, at least in the garment industry.
Anything outside the “norm” isn’t available because it doesn’t “pay” to create a broader range of clothing sizes, in terms of inventory, space availability in the stores, etc. But 85% of the people who need clothing are outside the “norm”. Why aren’t they being served? Because they can’t “pay” for it.
This is why I think it’s not “looksism” or “thin priviledge”; it’s classism. If the priority for clothing manufacturers was to actually provide decent clothing to as many people as possible, we would not be having this conversation. As I’ve said above, that is not the priority.
If someone wants to get a job in some kind of profession, and happens to be in the 85% range, it is going to harder to find everything one needs to get the job, never mind keep it, as is posted above. The fact that New Zealand actually provides grants to people who need interview clothes, is a nod in the direction of equalizing classist tendensies in the professional world. However, as is also posted elsewhere in this thread, the expectations of what a “professional” looks like, are quite limited and rigid. Being a professional means being a member of a fairly exclusive club, and I’m not surprised that it would cost a lot (in relative terms) to look the part of a club member. The whole point of being a member of a club IS the exclusivity. Classism is all about keeping the 85% out of the club, and insulating the 15% who are in the club from caring about anyone but themselves.
I place myself on at the 65% of the range above. I’m large, but I have a smidgen of buying power, and enough sense to know it’s not my fault the clothing I need isn’t easily available.
I, for one, am going to keep arguing, discussing, and supporting those businesses that do the right thing. It’s the least I can do.
I wish there were an internet site where you could just submit your measurements and pick a style, fabric and color, then they would custom make the item and send it to you. … and not be outrageously expensive. With computer controlled machinery, maybe someday this will be common.
Agreed!
Commendable, and the only thing that will work in the long run.
You-all do realize, however, I hope, that clothing (or anything else) made by people who are being paid decently will cost more than clothing made by third-world women and children who are being paid next to nothing.
This is OK. Most of us have too many clothes anyway. Half the time when I take clothing to the Goodwill they just throw it in a bin to be carted off to be made into rags, because it doesn’t pay them even to sort the stuff. This kind of behavior would have been unthinkable when I was a child.
Women used to make a lot of their own clothes because the ready-to-wear stuff cost a lot more, relatively, than it does now. A lot more than the fabric would cost to make it yourself. And clothing would still cost a lot if it weren’t being thrown together in Mexico or across the Pacific in east Asia. Just like organic food tends to cost more than the “food” which is the product of factory-farming.
We have to decide. Who and what and what values are we going to support?
how much do you think you’d spend on an interview outfit? Anything close to $300? No? That’s thin privilege.
Specifically, thin female privilege. Men are expected to wear suits, and a halfway-decent suit will usually set you back at least $300.
I want to know where a thin woman can go to get a good interview outfit for substantially less than $300. Not here, that’s for sure.
And that’s if you’re not oddly shaped.
by any accounting, i am thin. unfortunately, i am also tall, at 5’11”. so finding slacks and long sleeve tops (and jackets and coats) that fit are extremely difficult, unless of course, i shop at the tall girls shop. and then i’m spending the proverbial $300.00 per outfit. but even then, the tall girls shop offers few selections in a size 3. so if i’m willing to spend the money, there’s no guarantee i’ll be able to find anything.
now if i go into target or walmart, i find many selections that i think would look good on me at very reasonable prices. but absolutely none of the slacks fit. ever. unless i want to wear what would look like capris and 3/4 sleeves. or, more accurately, look like someone who is wearing clothes that are too short.
and many of the tops expose my midriff because the torsos are too short. fortunately, longer tops are now in style. i’m stocking up.
and don’t even get me started on shoes.
My friend Betsy is disabled and she gets far more shit about her body than I do. I disagree with the term thin privilege (see the posts I linked to for a fuller argument of why), but I really disagree with using it in this case. Being thin is not a predictor of being able to buy clothes from reasonably cheap stores. Many non-thin people can do it, and many thin people can’t do it.
The issue of male clothing is interesting but the economics is completely different. Amy already had an outfit for an interview, but she needed to buy another in case she got a second interview. A man who already had a suit would not need to buy another outfit, because once you’ve bought the suit you can wear it every day.
For the record my interview clothes would cost less than $100 NZ (about $60 US), and I have them all in my cupboard. Slightly more with underwear and shoes.
Susan we’re not talking about good quality clothes (or half-decent suits) most people who haven’t got the job yet can’t afford good quality or half-decent clothes. The point is the lowest
I also think the issue of labour standards is a complete red herring. Due to some work I’ve done in the past I know how small a percentage of any clothing is labour. Even a pair of suit pants that was made in New Zealand only has $5 labour in them (they retail for $100), so make those suit pants overseas and you save maybe $4.50, double the wages of the New Zealand workers, and you only add $5.00 to the cost of the suit.
While we’re giving advice I wanted to say if you can borrow a friend’s sewing machine you can often make clothes fit if you’re a little bit of an odd size. The only way I can wear shirts with buttons is by buying them to fit my breasts and taking them in at the arms and the waist.
Robert: I know it’s capitalism, I don’t like capitalism, I want to over-throw capitalism. It seems like we always have this conversation and it’s really tedious. I think a system that means that some people have to spend significantly more of the money they receive from work just in being able to look acceptable at work, is discriminatory and intolerable. You don’t, but don’t pretend that we don’t know the cause.
That would depend, I guess, on what job exactly it is you’re interviewing for. If you’re supposed to look “professional” (whatever that means) in any job in San Francisco, your interview suit will cost more than $60 if you buy it here. Except that this is improving since the advent of “business casual”. Improving, not solved, as noted above. The only people who wear suits in San Francisco are (1) lawyers going to court, (2) someone over the age of 80, (3) anyone going to a funeral, (4) sometimes, but not always, a man on his way to get married, or (5) Mormon missionaries.
I may well agree with this when I figure out what it means. More than whom?
I think a system that means that some people have to spend significantly more of the money they receive from work just in being able to look acceptable at work, is discriminatory and intolerable.
Eh. Some people have to spend considerably higher percentages of their income on transportation to be able to get to work. Some people have to spend more on housing to live close to work. Some people have to spend more on health to be fit for work. The discriminatory system you find intolerable appears to be the diversity of human desires, characteristics, and experiences.
“Discrimination”, to be something more than a codeword for “something in the physical universe that I don’t like”, needs to involve malicious intent, or at least systemic unfairness. There’s no conspiracy to make short men pay more for clothes; there’s no systemic effort to ensure that fat people can’t find stylish shoes. There are only economic realities: it takes resources to make and distribute clothes, the available resource pool isn’t infinite, and the lion’s share of the resources are most likely to be used on the largest group of people.
That’ll be true under capitalism, socialism, communism, or pastafarianism. Are you under the impression that the selection of clothing sizes, and the availability of inventory in sizes/designs that are available for outlier/small population groups, is going to be greater under a profitless system than under capitalism?
If so, then how do you reconcile this with the observed data on the consumer good choices actually available under those systems?
Oh. Fat people more than thin people I guess, or oddly shaped people (which is nearly everybody including me) than fashion models.
I’m with Robert on this one. The experiences of various societies with non-capitalist systems of production and distribution have resulted in fewer consumer choices rather than more, in clothing as well as in everything else. (Whether it is a good thing that we’re all drowning in stuff is for a separate discussion.)
I’m not sure I know what you want, Maia. Would all this be better if we could all go to work in coveralls? Would bigger coveralls not cost more than smaller coveralls? Would anyone really be willing to wear coveralls?
I’ve conducted a lifetime of strident advocacy to REMOVE HIGH HEELED SHOES FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, without success so far as I can see. Eighteen year old clerks in this year of 2007 are still tottering to work on 4″ heels, thus destroying their legs, their feet, their backs and their insides, in spite of my superior wisdom that the whole thing is a sexist crock.
“Looking professional” is in the eye of the beholder, and in the eye of the profession. (Which profession? Law? Medicine? Lap-dancing?) Much as I’d like to, I really don’t think that any economic system will banish clothing foolishness from the world.
Perhaps Maia is thinking that under a non-capitalist system, folks wouldn’t have to wear particular modes of dress for professional employment. Possible, I guess, but that particular cultural theme doesn’t seem all that tightly bound to our economic system choices. Businessmen in Stockholm wear nice suits.
I think that Maia is conflating “capitalism” with “economics”, frankly. The economic problems exist regardless of system; different systems simply provide different tools to deal with them. Nothing I’ve ever read (other than “everything will be strawberries and cream, come the revolution” polemics) indicates that a non-capitalist solution to clothing distribution would be superior.
Which reminds me of a joke:
Radical: “Come the revolution, there will be strawberries and cream at every meal!”
Moderate: “But I don’t like strawberries and cream.”
Radical: “Come the revolution, there will be strawberries and cream and you will like it!”
Come Maia’s revolution, you will have a comfy coverall that fits your body perfectly. And it will cost $2, and be produced by people who live in palatial homes and have 100% dental coverage, and will be spun from bulletproof magical fairy hair, and will always be available in every size, shape and color in every shop in every town.
I think I’ll stick to the achievable $30 pair of jeans, myself.
To call this ability ‘thin privilege’ ignores the other reasons clothes don’t fit people’s bodies.
I’m 6′ 2″ (188 cm) tall and weigh 280 lbs (122.4 Kg). I take a size 13 EE shoe (which a European 47.5 and is wider than normal). I take a size 7 7/8 hat (63 cm) and have a 42 inch (107 cm) waist. I can’t walk into your average store and buy a pair of damn SOCKS that fit, never mind anything else.
But, then, I”m big; it’s more profitable for a large corporation that manages a huge inventory to concentrate on the middle and not worry about people like me. So I drive a few miles past them to go to a store that is part of a chain called “Casual Male”. It used to be known as “Big and Tall Men’s Shop”, which precisely describes it’s target market. In there I can get every kind of clothing I wear every day.
Are my choices of stores more limited than smaller people? Sure. So what? The more you make of something, the cheaper it is to make and the cheaper it can be sold. That’s going to be the end result no matter what economic system you use.
“Discrimination”, to be something more than a codeword for “something in the physical universe that I don’t like”, needs to involve malicious intent, or at least systemic unfairness.
Actually, the main definition of “discrimination” is “the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently” – or, more simply put, the act of making a choice. Discrimination is a necessary and useful thing. Discrimination need not have any unfairness or malicious intent associated with it at all. This is why we have to talk about racial discrimination or sexual disrimination, etc.; because to decry “discrimination” without pointing out the basis for it is meaningless.
I do the wash fairly often at home. I have noticed one definite difference between men’s and women’s clothing; for a given price point, men’s clothing seems to be made from more durable materials and is better made than women’s clothing. Is this anyone else’s observation? Why is this?
RonF, you have accurately located the reason so many women, including myself, wear men’s clothing when we can get away with it. (Jeans, hiking boots, some shirts.)
Why is this? Why is women’s clothing at the same price as men’s clothing more cheaply made? I will now restrain myself from going on some kind of radical feminist RANT and confine myself to observing the women’s clothing tends to change in style more frequently than men’s and to be more highly styled, period. I will now NOT restrain myself and point out that this rationale does not work for, say, hiking boots.
The real reason they get away with this? We women let them. We accept inferior quality, we rush out and buy it. Just Say No.
Ron:
I suspect it’s because (this is my perception, though it may not be correct) women generally have more clothes than men, and will wear any given article of clothing less, thus making durability less of a selling point. Why make women’s clothes to last if they’re not going to wear them out anyway?
Brandon, hiking boots??? I’ve had the same pair of hiking boots – men’s model, natch – for ten years, and they’re not worn out yet.
I bought these in spite of the shoe salesman’s best efforts to get me to buy the “ladies’ model” – less well made, more expensive. When I asked him just how exactly FEET differ between the sexes (except for size, and that’s what sizes are for) he was at a loss, and quite properly so. The “ladies'” model didn’t look any different, either, it didn’t have exquisite purple flowers on it or something. It was merely and no more than an attempt at a RIP OFF.
Just Say No.
Women’s clothing is flimsier than men’s clothing.
Conversely, it’s often cheaper in the immediate sense, if you’re in the lowest economic category of clothes shoppers. Ross and other discount chains have about ten times as much women’s clothing than men’s clothing, and it’s often tagged at lower prices, regardless of the quality. I expect this has something to do with privilege. For the basic low-end pair of men’s pants, on sale, expect to pay $20-30. Basic low-end women’s pants range upwards from $10.
Women’s is hard to find in large sizes. Men’s is hard to find in small sizes.
The best way I have been able to determine that one may acquire relatively decent clothing, while unemployed or otherwise broke, is to go to Value Village thrift stores on their once-weekly dollar sale days. Go every week for long enough (this assumes the store in your area has a decent selection) and you will probably find something in your size and gendered-clothing preference that more than reimburses the effort. If you are looking for women’s clothing in size 6-12 or men’s in size L, you will find things fairly quickly. If you are looking for larger-than-average or smaller-than-average clothing, you will sometimes find only rejects and other times find something really, really cool that the average shoppers couldn’t fit.
PS to Pheeno — I believe junior sizing is a recent marketing invention and it runs differently than women’s sizing, but I can’t say for sure about the recent part.
I do know that women’s sizes have actually gotten somewhat larger in relation to their numerical scaling, insofar as there is any regularity to them, which there sometimes isn’t. See the factoid on Marilyn Monroe’s dress size.
The idea that economics alone guides clothing selections isn’t entirely off-base, but it would be more applicable if fashion were a purely utilitarian concern. Not quite; economics textbooks will quite often in fact use fashion and clothing as the typical heteregeneous market. People in clothing design do not see themselves as blind vectors of aggregate demand. There are a great deal of aesthetic values, and whether those values are prejudicial in nature is the question. I’d wager that the size of the average piece of expensive fashion and the size of the average human body is just a little off base. Life goes beyond Economics 101.
Maia, I think it predates capitalism by several ages. The idea that respectable people must distinguish themselves through their appearance is as old as time, harking back to when the proper class of people were the ones with the creepiest deformed skulls. We’d all be better off without it, if only because it’s quite pointless. I think today’s society could lose it entirely without missing a beat, but of course no one wants to be the first to cross the line – such is the case with all path dependent lunacy.
And what’s the deal with “misses” sizes? In some stores they’re larger than the “women’s” sizes, in others it’s the reverse. WTF is the point of having two different but interchangeable terms?
Feh.
Men’s clothing has traditionally been made by tailors, to make men look as much like an envelope with a very nice letter inside as possible.
Women’s clothing has traditionally been made by seamstresses, to make women look like they are peeling back an envelope to reveal a very nice letter as much as current society will allow.
Traditional men’s clothing hides men true shape. Traditional women’s clothing reveals women’s true shape.
The tailor/seamstress thing goes back a long way, and one of the theories of the difference in men’s/women’s clothing quality starts there. If I can find a reference to where I first found this theory I’ll post a link.
nexyjo – here’s a tip (which others have brought up): wear men’s clothing. A lot of time with slacks, jeans, and non-button-down shirts you can find men’s clothes that will fit you just fine. An dmen’s pants are usually meant for tall men.
I’m a tall girl myself (in addition to being big) and I got sick of women’s jeans about… 8 years ago. So I went to a store and tried on a bumch of mens sizes until I figured out my waist and inseam. After that, all I had to do was go to the rack, pick my waist and inseam numbers (which correspond to (GASP!) actual measurements), and take them to the register. I’ve not been frustrated with pant sizes since.
Maia – I understand your point about this particular instance, but I still think you’re wrong about thin privilege. As far as clothing goes, the dilemma of big women may be similar to thin women with ‘weird’ bodies or any other body type the fashion folks don’t consider normal, but that doesn’t exclude it from being part of thin privilege. It just means there’s a LOT wrong with the fashion industry. And just because your disabled friend deals more often with people who have able-bodied privilege STILL doesn’t mean thin privilege doesn’t exist. I definitely agree that there are all kinds of issues going on with women’s bodies and that thin privilege only covers a slice of that. I feel it’s a significant slice. But I don’t feel that you’re off the mark about clothing at all, I just feel that thin priv is a legit term.
Re: Lane Bryant – It’s been my experience that LB isn’t as useful for bigger women as some say. Only because they seem to cater to a certain type of big woman and I am not that woman. Then again, I gave up on them after two seasons so maybe they’ve changed now.
Oh, I forgot to add this: Women’s clothing has traditionally been made not only to reveal women’s true shape, but to create shapes so that women will look as much like the current fashion as possible (thus the corsette, bustle, etc).
What I should also add is probably more the point: men’s clothing is made to make them look invulnerable (you wouldn’t put a letter in the mail without an envelope, would you?). Whereas women’s clothing is made to make women look as vulnerable as possible (a woman without a man is like a letter without an envelope (!?).
Ok, one more reply and I’m off line for the day, folks.
Thin priviledge most definetly exists, I’ve seen it in action.
However, in the context of the original post, I still believe the problem at bottom is classism.
Backing up Angry Black Woman:
Lane Bryant’s designs are still designed for a certain type of woman (who at this point is considerable younger than me), and I’m not that woman either.
I go back once a year for a pair of pants that fit, that don’t have all sorts of fol-der-oll added to it. After lots of looking I get what I want. But it’s demoralizing to have to wade through all the dross to find the gold, which is not very high quality anyway.
I’d like to do what you do for pants, and maybe I will next time I want a pair of Carhartt’s, and brave the men’s section of the store. Recently Carhartt’s has offered pants designed for women, but it the size range doesn’t quite reach me.
Considering they went up to size 18, what’s the big deal with going to size 20 or 22? Someone decided we women of this size weren’t worth their time.
I’ve considered writing a letter to Carhartt explaining how nice it would be if they included a broader range of sizes for women, since they are now designing for women anyway. And, upon consideration until I do I’m not going to buy the men’s version, because I’ve really got to put my money where my mouth is.
However, if anyone actually finds what they need in the men’s section of any store, take it home and wear it in the best of health, and more power to you.
Fascinating topic. Actually there have been several scholarly works written on the history of clothing in this culture.
The thing that interests me the most currently is the tread, apparent throughout the 20th century, towards the simplification of clothing and towards having upper-class people dress as though they were workmen just about to carry a hod full of bricks (eg, jeans, the classic pants of the laboring classes). This has gone so far now that you can wear jeans to the opera (the ultimate in Upper-Class In-Group Party), and many people do, at least here. (And I don’t mean $200 “designer” jeans, I mean real $30 working clothes.) There’s a message in this trend, but I’m not enough of a scholar to figure out what it might be. All I know is, I like it.
Men’s clothing for women YES. The problem with jeans tends to be that they aren’t nipped in enough at the waist, but with a little fiddling with how you wear them exactly they can be just fine. Ask yourself. Why are you wearing jeans in the first place? Is it to look like a stripper who’s about to strip, or is it to be comfortable and get something done, even something like a trip to the store? If it’s the former, visit Frederick’s of Hollywood.
I agree totally. Creeps. Whoever Carhartt’s may be, Eva, you can buy men’s pants somewhere else without compromising your principles. Big men, even very big men, can readily buy jeans. Why should we be different? What’s the message here? That every woman over a size 18 should either wear a mu-mu made of meal sacking or, preferably, stay indoors all the time? Creeps. Don’t buy their stuff, maybe they’ll go out of business.
A final note from me on this men’s clothing/women’s clothing business.
My husband and I were batting this around, and I decided that clothing manufacturers (like all other vendors) will make their goods just as shoddy as they can, until enough people take them off the rack, say, “what junk” and put them back. Then the vendor backs off a notch and makes the thing a little better, so it will sell.
Similarly with price. They’ll charge as much as they think they can get away with, up until people look at it and say, “What?! That much for that? Nothing doing!” Then they’ll lower the price a smidge until it will sell.
My theory is than men, being less interested (usually) in tarting themselves up to meet The Latest Trend, have better standards in this matter than women, at least historically. That is, if someone tried to palm off the kind of junk on them that women’s clothing typically is, they’d say, “What? That much for this piece of junk? I wouldn’t buy this, I wouldn’t take it as a gift, it’s trash.” They want something more durable and more reasonable in price for value, and because they demand it, they get it.
There’s a lesson for us here, ladies. Don’t buy their crap, don’t support all these ridiculous and discriminatory ideas about body size and shape by giving these creeps your money. Eva is on the right track. Carhartt’s has its head wedged? Write them a letter and shop somewhere else. Go to the thrift shop as AJ Luxton suggests (what with the oversupply of used clothing in this country, the selection and the prices should be excellent), make your own clothing, shop on-line, buy men’s stuff when feasible, whatever. Just Say No, and all these predatory creeps will go out of business.
Susan, I’d like to make a slight modification to your insightful comment:
“men, not being required or expected to be tarting themselves up to meet The Latest Trend, have better standards in this matter than women, at least historically.”
It’s not that women have a ‘play dress-up’ gene, it’s that historically our worth has been based largely, if not entirely, on our appearance and willingness to go along with the demands of current style. Leading to us settling for whatever crap they sell, as you say.
ps. I second angryblackwoman’s comment about men’s pants. It’s weird that I can fit my extra “womanly” hips into men’s jeans better than women’s, but then, men’s are made to be comfortable.
unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be many men who are as skinny as i am, thus men’s slacks tend to be too large around the waist. and shirts tend to look like a tent on me, even if i am lucky enough to find a size “small”. i was in sears yesterday and got a few pairs of socks in the men’s department though. interestingly enough, my hubby found a belt he liked in a woman’s store next door. aren’t we the non-conforming couple :)
I looked up ‘custom clothes’ in google and found several sites that would outfit me for an interview for what appeared to be less than 300$ IC3d seemed pretty good until my browser had trouble with the flash. It’s not a systemic solution but it might help your friend.
Correction accepted, with this addendum: if our worth was formerly based on our appearance (well, mostly anyhow), is this still true?
I’d say No. Or sometimes No anyhow. I work mostly on the phone, and usually no one has the slightest idea what I look like and cares less. (I have clients I’ve represented for years whom I wouldn’t know from Adam if they walked into the room.) I’m one mean bitch of a lawyer, by the way, and I can bully most men pretty good, no flies on this girl.
And I know a lot of women like me, more who are younger.
So, riddle me this, all you tough broads –WHY IS EVERYONE STILL WEARING THOSE DAMNED HIGH HEELED SHOES??? You know what those are for? (Besides destroying your body, I mean?) They’re to accentuate your calves to make your legs look curvy, and to SLOW YOU DOWN so that some wimp of a man can catch up with you even if he isn’t so fast as all that. That’s what.
/rant
sorry
I wouldn’t say it’s standards. I’d say it’s difference in status markers.
The high water mark for status in women’s clothing is to be wearing the thing that is considered most apropos this month. For men’s clothing, it’s upscaling in quality or label, but a suit is a suit. There are a couple of small areas in men’s clothing (goth, the International Male catalog…) that subscribe to the idea that you might have clothing that does not all look the same, but in the cheap range selection is minimal.
That is because the status marker of men’s clothing, ultimately, is that it looks like men’s clothing. Male is ultimately seen as privileged in such a way that deviating from a very narrow range of form becomes “dressing down” or looking gay or looking, in some fashion, not like Default Man.
Since women’s fashion periodically harvests ideas from men’s fashion — and these ideas then lose their cachet as male status markers (take, for example, the vest, which went from being a largely male thing to being a female thing except in the context of archaic clothing or three piece suits) — I imagine that someday the men’s section will be down to things in precisely two shades of tan and olive which button the correct male way before it all breaks open. The tan things will come in all sizes except short and small, and everything else will come in all sizes except big and tall. Drag will catch on among businessmen as a cure for utter fashion ennui, and that fashion trend, not the complaints of larger trans-or-cis-gendered women, will burst the bubble.
…what?
Susan, I kind of agree. Certainly the emphasis on women’s appearances is less official, since we can provide for ourselves in ways other than scoring a husband, and technology certainly brings many exceptions…but we’re nowhere close to all the way yet. One good example is Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful elected female our country has ever seen, who apparently cannot be discussed in the media without mention of her suits (sometimes at the full exclusion of her politics). Btw, my mother shares your first name and is also one mean bitch of a lawyer, props to both of you.
And Al Gore will be weeping with earth-toned joy ;)
Robert, you wrote:small men have a terrible time finding clothes. The Internet has largely solved this problem,
Really?! Please list catalogs that carry adult men’s dress pants in size 28″ waist. Seriously. I’m not being snarky. List them. That’s my husband’s waist size and he’s 5’9″ tall. We can find stuff for short men, but not thin men. Catalogs with suits etc. welcome too! (Responses by private email also welcome!)
Brandon, hiking boots??? I’ve had the same pair of hiking boots – men’s model, natch – for ten years, and they’re not worn out yet.
How much hiking do you do? Mine last about 2.5 years. But then I wear them into the woods a lot as well as to work, etc. I buy the same jungle boots that the U.S. Military issues. The great thing about military stuff is that the military has to fit everyone, so not only can you buy the boots in every length, they are made in 5 different widths as well.
HAH! You guys think these threads can run on; try going onto an outdoor-oriented blog or mailing list and ask, “What’s the best type of boots to buy?” It’s worse than religion.
RonF
I hike for pleasure; I work at a desk. The long life of my hiking boots is a sad commentary on how much free time I get.
Susan,
I’d just like to say that I will join your crusade to end high heels everywhere. I have never owned a pair (mainly because I can’t walk in them and they would create serious physical issues for my already problematic feet and legs). I HATE that in a “dressy occassion” I can never be totally appropriately dressed as an adult woman because I can’t wear heels. What kind of crap is that? I know ballerina flats have been more “in” recently and available, but I can’t wear those either. If we expanded the notion of what is appropriate footwear for certain occassions I suspect a lot of women would give up the heels eventually. But sometimes it’s hard to find a leader among sheep…
Susan, no time is free; it all costs. Remember what people are saying upthread about “budget for the luxuries first”? Or maybe it was another thread. Anyway, that’s not just your financial budget, it’s your time budget as well.
I know, I know, we all have our constraints. I’m just trying to give you a little encouragement.
Thank you Ron, you are totally correct and I appreciate the encouragement.
I’d like to announce that Kate L is a smart lady who has her head on straight. What this country needs is more women like Kate, and if we had them we’d all be happier, healthier, and, I believe, more beautiful, unless you think deliberately induced deformity is beautiful, in which case I’d recommend you to the nineteenth century Chinese practice of foot binding. On yourself, please, not on me and Kate, WE KNOW BETTER.
I imagine that someday the men’s section will be down to things in precisely two shades of tan and olive
I was in a new office when a mailroom cabinet came in, like a bookshelf except with vertical as well as horizontal dividers for putting mail for 50 people in. One of my female colleagues remarked, “I could use that for my shoes,” and this met with general approbation (it was a mostly female office). I asked, “What? Who the hell has 50 pairs of shoes?” Well, apparently, a lot of women do. I would never have guessed. One of them remarked, “Men are lucky; all you need is a pair of brown shoes and a pair of black shoes!” I said, “That’s not right.” They said, “Why, what other shoes do you have?” My answer; “Oh, no, I’m just trying to figure out what I’d need a pair of brown shoes for.”
“Specifically, thin female privilege. Men are expected to wear suits, and a halfway-decent suit will usually set you back at least $300.”
Since when were women not expected to wear suits for interviews as well, and sometimes for work? I would never dream of going to an interview for a professional job without wearing a suit, and I don’t know of any woman who would.
The higher the salary you’re going for, the more expensive your interview suit needs to be. I think this is pretty true for men *and* women. My first interview suit was Lane Bryant and cost $40, I think. I bought a dark navy suit the last time I needed one ($300), and I wear it to funerals.
Dress Barn Woman has some nice suits that go up to size 24 and cost around $150-$200 (unless you hit a sale, as I did last week – $51 for a reasonable suit). If you need something more upscale than that, you used to be able to order Brooks Brothers suits in plus sizes, but it took 2 weeks. (I don’t know if this is still true or not.) Alternatively, the people that teach tailoring classes are sometimes willing to sew made-to-order suits; the last time I costed it out, it was about $250, but that was several years ago.
I haven’t had to look for larger-sized suits (I do fall into the “smaller woman with oddly shaped body” category), but I can say that suits are just damn expensive, period. As a grad student, I have had internships for 3-5 days a week for the past 3 years and they all required suits. Now, as a full-time student on meager loans, it was REALLY hard for me to buy enough suits to look professional and not be wearing the same one every day (dry cleaning also adds up). So, what I would do is buy wool suits in the Summer, and lighter fabric suits in the Winter, because I knew I would need them. The cheapest I’ve ever found a nice suit has been $75. The most I’ve paid is $250 and that’s because I fell in love with it in the window and made special sacrifices by not going out for a month to justify the splurge. :) I don’t like buying suits that retail for really cheap prices b/c they usually look cheap. I’d rather just wait for a good, nicely made suit to go on sale, or go outlet shopping. (I’ve gotten great Brooks Brothers suits for under $100 at the outlets)
As for high heels….sigh. Am I not a feminist anymore because I like them? :( I will completely support any movement that expands the acceptable female office/professional footwear code, but I still want to be able to wear heels if I feel like it. I like feeling taller. :)
Dj’s right about women’s suits. (And men’s suits too, really.) Fortunately in San Francisco the suit is as dead as the dodo bird, unless you’re going to a funeral.
Dj my dear, maybe it’s height. I’m 5/9″; in 3″ heels I’m six feet tall, and look down on most men. Men tend not to like that, and whereas who cares what they like, still if you’re trying to make friends it’s not an asset. (I try to make friends with, say, potential clients.)
But no. Feminism isn’t all about replacing one totalitarianism with another, the way “working women” of a certain age dissed women who stayed home with their kids. Live and let live.
You can wear heels so far as I am concerned, just so long as the rest of us don’t have to. (I feel the same way, by the bye, about foot binding, cosmetic surgery, breast implants. Not morally reprehensible so long as I don’t have to do it. OK for other people, not for me.) Totter along in good health with my blessings, just don’t do it too much or you’ll never walk painlessly again. Or if that’s OK too, go ahead, who am I to say.
Funny you should mention height. I am 5’7″, which isn’t tiny, but since I work in the legal field, which still is disproportionately male, and men on average tend to be taller, I like to be able to look men in the eye, or at least be closer to chin level. :) Heels also make me keep a better posture–I’ve noticed I’m more inclined to slouch when I’m wearing flats. But I completely understand the comfort issue. I always carry a pair of sneaks with me at my desk and in my car so I can change into them if I’m not going to need to go to court or to a meeting.
DJ,
How the heck is 5’7″ a “smaller” woman?? Smaller than what?
So, like me, you’re a lawyer. Myself, I like to sit down and glare at a male who dares not sit down for whatever reason, but who stands to attention. Or I yell at them on the phone, and they can’t see my feet when I do that. :)
Sneaks in the desk drawer are always a good fallback. What if, suddenly, you have to walk ten blocks to get somewhere? And still be able to walk without limping when you arrive? A capacious brief case plus some running shoes therein and voila! problem solved. Then you can totter in to your meeting on stilts and no one will be the wiser.
We have to wear heels in court, or we look like bag ladies. It is what it is. Men don’t like ties either, but they wear them to court (here, only to court, nowhere else).
Oh, I meant “smaller” as in size 8 or 6, depending on how much I’m working out, not height. But I’m “oddly shaped” in that my thighs and bust tend to limit some of my clothing options. It’s hard to find a nice-fitting button down shirt that doesn’t have the problem of gapping at the bust area and looking inappropriate, so I usually just buy sleeveless sweaters or shells to wear underneath, which, thank goodness, appears to be equally professional. As for the thigh/pants issue, I am not generally a fan of suit pants since they are for some reason high-waisted most of the time, or have front pleats, which, I’m sorry, does not look good on me and probably a lot of other women. So, skirts it usually is. Oh well, at least I don’t have to wear a tie.
No pants for me, partly because I look better in skirts, partly because they aren’t as formal, and if I’m not going to all this trouble why am I not in jeans?
The ultimate goal of female professional garb is to distract the males you’re dealing with from sex for a millisecond maybe so you can get some work done. The sweaters and shells work admirably. How high heels work in here is problematic, but as you note, we have to wear them so what.
I have a young (22) daughter who wears ties. NO DON’T DO IT
I have a young (22) daughter who wears ties. NO DON’T DO IT
…. Huh? Random interjection of gender policing for the whaaaat?
Hey, OK, if she wants to garrote herself who am I to say? Similarly DJ. She wants to wear stilts to a meeting? With my blessing. Freedom is real, you can garrote yourself or do yourself bone damage at your leisure.
“DONT DO IT”? Advice, honey, advice.
“Random interjection of gender policing for the whaaaat?”
I saw it more as fashion policing, as opposed to gender policing. :)
When did advice become policing?
“Everything not forbidden is mandatory”? No opinions allowed? Ah, the totalitarianism of the Left.
“Fashion police” is just slang for not liking a particular look and/or thinking it’s tacky, not an actual attempt to regulate people’s clothing. If I see someone wearing neon pink leggings and a floppy shirt with a wide patent leather belt in some sort of hideous 80s flashback (and sadly, I did actually see that), I would think, woo woo (siren sound) fashion police would say that’s a definite no. It’s why people enjoying shows like “What Not To Wear.” Everyone is entitled to their choices of fashion and their opinions.
Susan, if you’re going to object to hyperbole in other people’s comments (“when did advice become policing”), then it’s hypocritical of you to use a hyperbolic phrase like “the totalitarianism of the left.”
Argh, there go my comments disappearing into the void again. Erp.