Comments on: Ouroboros

By: La BellaDonna

La BellaDonna — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:44:21 +0000

I normally read first, and then rant; today, I will Rant and then Read. Hear me, oh designers, who think your art needs to be displayed on thin thin thinny thin women because they make better hangers: If you want your frigging art on a hanger, then BE A PAINTER AND HANG YOUR GODDAMNED ART ON THE WALL. I call complete and utter FAIL. You, you inept and incompetent whiny children, are NOT clothing designers, because CLOTHING is FUNCTIONAL. It can and should be beautiful, but if you are unable to competently clothe a human being, you’re no designer, and you’re no professional. Look at the clothing made by the designers who preceded you: Worth, Doucet, Pingat, Callot Soeurs. Look at someone more recent, Mme. Lanvin. These designers made clothing for women of ALL DIFFERENT SIZES. There are not only pictures; there are ACTUAL GARMENTS in museums. These clothes actually are works of art – and a good many of them were made for women well above the current average U.S. size 14. Lucile, Lady Duff Gordon, who INTRODUCED live models and the catwalk, showed her clothes on models, the LIGHTEST of whom was 180 pounds. I, personally, have made breathtaking gowns for plus-sized women, dresses that were dazzling in themselves, and made their wearers look, and feel, like goddesses. While there are many tiny clothes in museums, there are PLENTY of them, down through the centuries, that have been for women above a current U.S. 14. I know, because I’ve SEEN them. So don’t give ME crap about how clothes need to be worn by thin women in order to hang right. The only time clothes look their best on hangers is when clothes are DESIGNED to look their best on hangers. If you designed your goddamned clothes to look good on WOMEN, then the clothes would look good on women. Thin women, short women, tall women, fat women, busty women, flat women, pear-shaped women, and women anywhere in between. The fault does not lie with women, their weight, or the shape of their bodies. The fault, dear designers, lies with YOU. Take your whiny inept selves back to your roots: go to museums, do some research, and take your frigging muslin out of wraps in your workrooms, and do some draping on ALL DIFFERENT SHAPES AND SIZES, AND LEARN YOUR DAMNED CRAFT.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:52:11 +0000

CyndiF, try reading the entire post next time, K?

God, I hate ignorant people.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:51:05 +0000

Studboy, you are calling the blog owner “disrespectful” while bashing her? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Get a life, asshole.

By: class factotum

class factotum — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:38:07 +0000

Plumcake, of course there’s nothing wrong with having your pants hemmed. I am just lazy. :)

(Although I did tell my friend who is 5’1″ to quit paying the tailor $30 a pair to hem hers — I would do it for free.)

By: chachaheels

chachaheels — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:21:29 +0000

Here’s what I say to those who prattle on about how, business-wise, it’s impossible to cater to big women by carrying pretty clothes in their sizes: if there are stores in Norway who can do it, and if stores like Marina Rinaldi can do it (and doing it successfully for years now) then there is absolutely no excuse stores like Ann Taylor et all can’t do it.

They just don’t want to. They can hire all the journalists they want to put a spin on their prejudice, but it doesn’t change the fact that the market is there, and plenty of other ingenious companies can thrive in choosing to cater to it.

Seriously: it’s a matter of following a successful business model to gain the custom of a vast and ready market of consumers. If they choose not to capitalize on this just for the sake of holding fast to their sizism, then what we’re about to create with our letter writing is an example of survival of the fittest. Prejudice should be a threat to business survival: it’s about time we turned this into a valuable business school lesson.

By: Plumcake

Plumcake — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:20:21 +0000

Well to be fair, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having your pants hemmed.

By: class factotum

class factotum — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:08:48 +0000

Violet, you raise some excellent points. But if I could be sure that the waist and hips would fit, at least then I would have fewer items to try!

And as far as taller/shorter — why why why do designers assume I am either 6″ taller than I am (because that’s the only way I would have this big ass?) or that I want to wear high-heeled shoes with my jeans? I want to wear flat, comfortable shoes with my pants, so please give me something that is the appropriate length. Honestly.

By: Violet

Violet — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:34:53 +0000

I’m not happy about it and I’m not sure it excuses the market’s present failure to address such widespread unmet needs, but the fact is women have a lot more dimensions in which we vary considerably than men do.
Men’s hips are about as narrow as their butts, and they often wear their trousers under any belly, so that doesn’t figure in. Waist and inseam really do pretty much cover it for the vast majority of men. That’s just two measurements. To make me a pair of size 14 trousers that truly fit me and not the three completely differently shaped, taller and/or shorter size 14 women sitting next to me, it seems like you would need to decide on the rise and measure waist accordingly, which means adding a whole important variation within waist, and then add to that: inseam, hip, upper thigh, and possibly also incorporate some kind of sense of the shape of the butt. That’s seriously the minimum, judging by the specific kinds of fit frustration I’ve had just in the last year. And I’m an inbetweenie. I can only imagine it gets even more complicated as you move up to size 22 and 32 (calf probably comes into it at some point, and you start getting sitting/standing variance). There’s a reason knits, stretch, and drapey wide-leg styles are ubiquitous.

I think the answer is going to come from better software in the future. The early feints at it have been pretty limited and unsatisfying but eventually it seems like there should be a way to do mid-priced semiautomated tailoring to measurements.

By: class factotum

class factotum — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:55:23 +0000

True, women’s sizes are not standard.

But would it be soooo hard to size women’s clothes the way men’s clothes are sized? I would be a lot more willing to order pants online if they would tell me what the waist and hip measurements are, because then I might have an idea if they would fit.

I have clothes in at least three sizes that all fit me now because of weird sizing. I tried on a pair of Levis yesterday in a 6. Wayyyy too tight. Yet I bought some Levis the other day that are a 4. Which I am not. (OK, I got them at TJMAxx and I think they were seconds because they were mis-labeled, but still.) Why would the 4s fit and not the 6s? In the same brand? Just give me the measurements. It’s not that hard.

By: Virginia Postrel

Virginia Postrel — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:18:34 +0000

I should add, finally, that the fundamental problem is not that making clothes for all different body types is “hard”–though it is–but that it is hard and unprofitable. If plus sizes (or petites, or pants and jackets that would actually fit my unusually proportioned body without alteration) could sell at twice the price of regular-size versions of the same items, I’m sure we’d see plenty of them in the stores.