Vanity Sizing Strikes Men’s Fashion
On the heels of the feminism debate in the comments, I have some news for the guys: your pants size may be lying to you. A supposed 36″ pant measures 41″ at Old Navy and 39.5″ at Dockers… and doesn’t seem to measure 36″ anywhere.
There’s a chart at that link, but before you click, be warned: there’s plenty of fatism to be had in that article. The writer assures us he’s “no cow,” conflates larger sizes with poorer health (and ice-cream eating) throughout, and talks about how he doesn’t “deserve” to feel good if his pants size is really 39″. Ugh.
Anyway, women complain about vanity sizing all the time because it makes it so difficult to reliably shop for clothes (particularly when brick-and-mortar stores refuse to carry your size, and you have to order online, cough cough). We say, “Why can’t the sizing be straightforward! Measured in inches! Like men’s sizes!” We do not say, “Why can’t men’s sizes be equally misleading and confusing, because that would be more fair!”
Fashion industry, you’re going in the wrong direction.
Posted by mo pie
Email us
that’s so strange! when they do it in women’s sizes, they’re using those vague subjective sizes, so okay, whatever. but there is nothing subjective about an inch!
I’d always thought that men’s pant sizes reflected the wearer’s waist size, not the actual garment measurement. So there’s always going to be some wearing ease, and different brands will have different amounts. In theory, I’ve always thought that the sizing numbers on men’s clothes meant “a size 36 will fit a man with a 36 inch waist in the way this style is designed to fit.”
That doesn’t account for the higher numbers, which would probably slide right off a true size 36 guy, but it does account for why no style was a ‘true’ 36.
This. And I’m not surprised to hear that Old Navy pants are on the large size, since they’re like that in women’s as well.
This is hysterical. We all know women’s sizes are subjective, but inches should be, you know, inches.
I’ve known about this for a while, but never really thought about it. My fiancé wears size 34 jeans, his waist is 38 inches.
I’ll have to be paying more attention to men’s sizing since my son is now there – at age 15. Women’s is a mystery. I am tall, and sometimes buy larger sizes in order to get longer (sleeves, etc.) – so for a suit for work, I may buy (depending on manufacturer) a size 10 or 12 – or, rarely, an 8 or 14. But if I sew something – the sizes (which go back a while and reflect American sizes from decades ago, as I understand it) – I need to buy a size 16 or 18. It’s enough to make your eyes cross.
R.
Whoa. May I gently suggest that a trigger warning might be good for this post?
Forgive my obtuseness, Jerome (I’m half-asleep already) but can you elaborate on what is triggering? I’m afraid I’m not getting it.
Let me start by saying that I don’t intend for this to be a “what about the menz?” type of comment. I can only speak for myself, so here goes: as a man with an ED “in remission” and a very, very long history of freaking out over pants sizes (like, every single single day when I get dressed), after reading it I immediately started thinking that all of my clothing is lying to me and that I must have really gained a ton of weight, and you how it goes from there. I’m at work and was able to get it together pretty quickly, but that’s what I was getting at.
Ok, one very important point though… if your waist was 36 inches you wouldn’t actually want to have your pants be that exact size – imagine how tight that would be! Especially doing normal everyday things like sitting down. There has to be a little bit of room for movement.
Maybe not up to what Old Navy has for their sizes but an extra inch or so shouldn’t be surprising.
The fashion industy has always been going in the wrong direction. Their business is making us feel bad about ourselves, so that we’ll buy more of their crap, because we’re sheep that thinks that buying something else will make us look a little better.
They hate us, but they want our money – just like the banks and the insurance industry.
There’s always a certain amount of design ease in a garment. It is meant to fit someone with certain measurements, not actually BE those measurements. Every manufacturer uses different designs and different patterns, and the amount of ease also will vary depending on what’s in style at the moment.
@Nailvarnish: “Ok, one very important point though… if your waist was 36 inches you wouldn’t actually want to have your pants be that exact size – imagine how tight that would be!”
Sure, but either “These pants will fit someone with a 36 inch waist” or “These pants are 36 inches, buy accordingly,” would be fine… “These pants have the number 36 written on them, are 39 inches, and fit someone with a 38 inch waist well” just doesn’t help :)
I hope there’s no conspiracy when it comes to sizes. Maybe guy who tailored the first woman’s pant set the mystery…
It honestly never occurred to me that 36″ was the waist size, not the pants size, and so it would obviously not be exactly 36″. Clearly I have no idea how men’s pants work!
I can’t believe some dude is freaking out about “vanity sizing” just because 5 out of 7 pairs of pants have an appropriate amount of ease for the waist size on the label. (The 41″ pants are too big for a 36″ waist, and the 37″ pants are too small.)
It would make sense to think it’s made to fit someone with a waist that size and that the pants are bigger so they fit comfortably. But when you have a waist that is larger than the size you wear and have to use a belt to keep your jeans up? Seems like vanity sizing to me.
Last night I tried on a skirt that I bought at Old Navy in 2000. It still fit me the same it did 10 years ago but it is twice the size of what I currently buy at Old Navy.
In just 10 years Old Navy has shifted their sizes so that I am buying the same skirt today, but the tag says it is half the size it was in 2000.
Messed up.