Bringing sizes up to scratch
Online Lifestyle Editor, Amy Butterworth, criticises clothing brands for their sizing inconsistency and perpetuating of ‘ideal’ body standards
***TW: dress sizes, body dysmorphia***
One of the biggest enigmas facing the 21st century shopper is the inconsistency of retail sizing. It is not uncommon for a woman to effortlessly slide into size 10 jeans from one shop, but struggle to hitch up a size 12 from another. High street retailers have been exposed for not only confusing but manipulating its shoppers through ‘vanity sizing’, wherein manufacturers size clothes down in order to compliment the shopper, which in theory should increase the chances of purchase.
An article from The New York Times uncovered this by comparing size eights (UK size twelve) from various retailers, and the results revealed that when comparing the waistlines, different brands could have a discrepancy of 5 inches. This phenomenon inherently exhibits the unconscious bias towards the solely thin ideal of feminine beauty, as retailers believe we should reward ourselves for and seek self-validation from wearing a smaller size. This dismantles the progress made within the body positivity movement, and could potentially have long-lasting, dangerous effects on those suffering with body dysmorphia.
retailers believe we should seek self-validation from wearing a smaller size
Therefore, high street retailers such as Next, ASOS, New Look and River Island are responding to these criticisms, and are currently working for a standardisation of sizes. 30,000 adults will be submitting their measurements and two photographs to a nationwide survey via the ShapeGB app, in order to assess the weight distributions of the arms, legs, chest, pelvis and abdomen, to be combined to create an accurate standardized sizing specification.
This is a monumental step towards not only mitigating the size discrepancies between retailers, but also updating the sizes to reflect the body shapes of the nation today. The last national sizing survey occurred in 2001, but the improvements in 3D technology and the hopefully more racially, bodily diverse sample group will help customers feel more comfortable in the clothing size that they truly are.
However, will this be a complete improvement and revolution for high street fashion? I am sceptical, as it is likely that the size range will stay the same. While the standardisation of sizes may be beneficial for the average consumer, those who do not fit within the constraints of ‘average’ will continue to struggle.
Plus-size collections of clothing demonstrate how the industry is catering to the particular needs of plus-size women with the same attention to the ‘normal’ section of the site. “To get the perfect plus-sized jean, we have made it higher on the rise. With shirts, we have adjusted the relative size of the front pockets”, says Jo Hales for The Guardian, head buyer at M&S when discussing their Curve range. However, there still remains the potential factor that the aforementioned standardisation does not take into account the intricacies which go into the designs of plus-sized clothing: it does not just involve a scaling up of the item. Furthermore, we must acknowledge the incredibly arbitrary distinction between ‘normal’ and plus-size, and the possibility of ‘othering’ when confining plus-size clothing into a separate section of the shop or website.
we must acknowledge the incredibly arbitrary distinction between ‘normal’ and plus-size
I must also bring to light the recent trend of ‘one size fits most’ clothing, which disrupts all recent strides for clothing inclusivity. Brandy Melville, for instance, a clothing brand inspired by beachy Cali-vibes, perpetuates an ‘ideal’ body shape. A study from The Observer has revealed that their clothes would only truly fit a US size 0 (UK size 4); it is abundantly clear that a brand normalising the notion that everyone should be size 4 is deeply damaging and unrealistic for a society in which the average British woman aged 16-24 (Brandy Melville’s main demographic) is size 14.
The standardisation of clothing is no doubt a step in the right direction for clothing inclusivity, however, this standardisation must be for the benefit of every consumer of every size, not just the nation’s average. At the very least, I am hopeful for a future in which I no longer need to take three different sizes of the same dress into the changing room, crossing my fingers that at least one will fit.
