Women's Sizing is Seriously Screwed Up (but it doesn't have to be)

Illustration: Ian Dingman (source)

Inconsistency in sizing: a pandemic in women's fashion since the dawn of mass manufacturing (and by that I mean the 1930s). It is the cause of so much hassle that could easily be avoided. This is often known as "vanity sizing."

As a fellow lady, I have run into this problem many times. I'll go to a store and pick out a cute pair of shorts. This is a size 5, I say to myself naively, they aught to fit me just fine!
Try them on in the dressing room, they won't go past my thighs. Yet the shorts I wore into the store are a size 5.

What is the deal with that?!

As a matter of fact, I have 3 pairs of the same jeans, from the same store in the same size, that all fit differently: one too big, one too small, the other one just perfect.

I don't understand how that's possible.

Men don't really have this problem. Their sizing makes sense. For example, a man's pants size is usually based on the measurement of his waist and inseam. Once a dude knows those numbers, he can find a great fitting pair of pants in any store he goes into. Easy as pie. (But possibly not for much longer).

(source)

For us ladies, however, it's a constant guessing game as to what size we really are, and it changes based on brand, fit, style, store, etc. I have pairs of shorts and jeans that range from size 5s to size 10s, and they all fit me just fine (heck, at one point the 5 was too big on me and the 10 was almost too snug).

What's also confusing is the numbering system itself. American women tend to like smaller numbers because then we are under the illusion that smaller is better (but really it's not). Because of that, it tends to be way more comforting to say "I'm a size 2" instead of "I'm a size 12" (or even worse, a size 24). Not only that, but the sizes change from even to odd numbers between brands! If someone is normally a 5, does that mean they would be a size 6 or a size 4 in even numbers? It's all very confusing.

I've also noticed this phenomenon internationally. While I was in London, I went to one of 3 H&Ms in Oxford Circus. The smallest size they had in pretty much everything was a 4 or an 8 (depending on the clothing item). I bought a dress that was a size 10 and it was the second smallest size they had, fits like a dream. Back in the U.S., a size 10 is one of the bigger sizes you can get and I wouldn't fit a dress that's a U.S. size 10.

Then as I looked on the label, it had different sizes for every country they marketed to.

This whole ordeal could be solved rather easily: base sizing off measurements instead of by God-knows-what. Take a page from men's fashion. It isn't that hard to measure your inseam, waist, and hip measurements, and it would make everything SO. MUCH. EASIER. The U.S. can use inches and everyone else can use centimetres, then we'd only have two types of sizes! Much more reasonable than seven.

What could inhibit this is our fear of big numbers. Women are subconsciously told that bigger numbers are bad and smaller numbers are good, which is why a lot of times we become self-conscious if our size is a two-digit number. It can be difficult sometimes to realize that a size 24 is tiny! (that means your waist is only 2 feet around, that's itty bitty).

Sizes even change over time. What's considered an 8 one decade could be a 12 the next. It even happens within a few years. What really pissed me off is when Aeropostale reformatted their sizes. I used to fit their size 5, and now I can barely get into a size 7 or 9. It's ridiculous.

In the case of some companies, they want us to feel bad about our size to make us think we aren't beautiful because of a number (I'm looking at you, CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch). You're a size 00? Awesome! Size 14? Fantastic! Wherever you fall on the spectrum, it's totally fine. And yes, a double zero is a size.

I could be a size 10 in Hollister jeans (they tend to make their sizes REALLY small to make us all feel bad), yet I'm a size 2 in most dress sizes. That doesn't make sense to me. And I try not to think any of those sizes makes me "ugly" or "fat" (which is a dumb insult anyway, being "fat" isn't necessarily negative or unhealthy).

So, until the commercial fashion industry comes to their senses, the guessing game will march on. We can only hope that'll change someday.



Just remember guys and gals: you are more than your clothing size. It's just a number, and that number doesn't define you or your worth!

Have any awful sizing dilemmas you want to share? Write them in the comment section below.

Till next time xx,

Sierra

The Chick Flick Stigma

Image made by Sierra, courtesy of IMDB for movie poster images

It's common knowledge that films, when being written and directed, either have a target audience in mind or naturally evolve one during the creative process. One of the most popular, and supposedly "embarrassing" categories of films are known as "chick flicks." 

Some prime examples that I came across of these types of movies are 27 Dresses, The Notebook, Pride & Prejudice, Legally Blonde, Under the Tuscan Sun, and Sleepless in Seattle.

A chick flick is a movie usually focused on romance, with occasional comedy, tend to have female leads, and have a handsome love interest for our heroine. The label suggest that they are considered for all women and only women to enjoy.  Because movies such as these are automatically labelled as such, men and women alike tend to automatically avoid them.

Why are people so ashamed to like these kinds of movies?

Some say they're "predictable" and follow the same formula. Though many have similar themes and plot lines, that doesn't automatically make it as a bad movie. Originality is difficult, anyone who writes fiction (or creates any other medium of art) knows this firsthand. It's not a bad thing to take similar ideas from other movies and model them after that. It will eventually evolve into something of its own. In a good film, there will be facets that stand out and make it great.

The term "chick flick" has a connotation of being of horrible, predictable, and lovey-dovey.

But these films have value. For example, Legally Blonde is about a college girl that follows her bonehead boyfriend to Harvard Law School in order to win him back, but soon she finds her passion in helping others and studying to become a lawyer herself. Elle Woods (played by Reese Witherspoon) is an intelligent, confident woman who doesn't compromise her own values and style to conform to her colleagues, and kicks lawyer ass while doing it. Her relationship with her new boyfriend (a huge improvement over the last) at the end is only a footnote. I think more people should watch movies like Legally Blonde, because it features a confident, bubbly, smart female lead that can hold her own in the cutthroat lawyer world without sacrificing her femininity. 

Reese Witherspoon looking fabulous as leading lady Elle Woods, image c/o Rotten Tomatoes

For those who claim these movies aren't intelligent enough, guess again. Some of these films are based off classic literary works by William Shakespeare and Jane Austen, such as Clueless (Emma by Jane Austen), She's The Man (Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare), and 10 Things I Hate About You (The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare). Pride & Prejudice, the novel and direct film adaptation of Austen's novel, is severely criticized at first glance because "it's all about romance", despite it being wildly popular among women. This is said like it's a bad thing. Austen's characters are complex and tell a masterfully, wittily crafted commentary on her society's ridiculous pomp and circumstance. She challenges these ideas through a romantic story, and uses Elizabeth and Darcy's relationship to make a statement.

Many of these romantic/romantic-comedic films make their own kind of statements, whether it's being true to yourself, believing in love, despite the circumstances; not judging someone without getting to know them, or finding that what you want has been right in front of you all along.

Yes, more often than not these movies get a bad rap right off the bat. "They're not realistic" they say. "They're too romantic" they complain. And my response to that is this: so what? These movies are touching, emotional, and often downright hilarious, if you give them the chance.

It's okay to have preferences, of course. Maybe romance isn't your style and you prefer action and adventure movies. That's totally okay. However, action and adventure movies could also be considered "chick flicks" as well, based on the fact that A LOT OF WOMEN LIKE THEM.

See the problem here?

People would even say that inspiring movies such as A League Of Their Own, a movie about women's baseball and breaking down traditional gender roles, as a "chick flick" because it's mainly starring women and focuses on the relationship of two sisters.

Really? Are you serious right now?

Riddle me this: why do we belittle movies with emotional elements labeled as "chick flicks" automatically? Is it because we think that having faith in love is silly? 

Or is it because women like them and women are the main characters, and whatever women like must be inferior? I know many guys that won't even look at a certain film twice because "it's for chicks", or are embarrassed to admit that they genuinely enjoy films like Love, Actually or Dirty Dancing. This includes other women who don't "want to be like other women". That's a downright shame, for people that think that way.

It's part of the classic stereotype that women are mainly emotional and men are more action-oriented and logic-based. This is a gross misrepresentation, since human emotions and logical decisions are all basic human qualities despite gender.

The term "chick flick" should be removed from our vocabulary. Everyone is entitled to liking any movie they wish, despite it being a "girl movie" or a "boy movie" (both ridiculous labels with sexist criteria). Romantic comedies can have male leads, and action/adventure movies can have (and should have more) female leads.

Not every romantic comedy will be a winner, but there are definitely more diamonds in the rough than many of us are giving credit to, buried under the stigma of the "chick flick" label. 

Let's start getting past that and enjoy a movie for what it is, despite what the main demographic it was geared towards.

Here are a list of my favorite so-called "chick flicks":

• The Princess Bride (I didn't know this was considered a "girl movie" since I've seen it over a hundred times, but it's my favorite movie of all time so it's going on here)
• When Harry Met Sally
• 10 Things I Hate About You (seriously, one of the best movies I've ever seen)
• Clueless
• Made of Honor
• 27 Dresses
• Sleepless In Seattle
• An Affair To Remember
• My Fair Lady
• Miss Congeniality
• Sixteen Candles
• Legally Blonde
• Pretty Woman

What's your favorite romantic/romantic comedy movie? Favorite movie from another genre?

Why do you think we shun these "chick flicks"?

Tell me in the comments below!

Till next time xx,

Sierra

When a filibuster is more than a filibuster

All right you guys, I'm about to get political over here. Brace yourselves.

(source)

Meet real-life Wonder Woman Senator Wendy Davis. She holds a seat in the Texas legislature. On June 25th, 2013 starting at 11:18 a.m. she began her filibuster against Bill SB5, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. This bill, if passed, would shut down all but 5 medical clinics in the entire state of Texas. These clinics do not only provide abortion services, but affordable health care for women, men, and children.
For those who don't know what a filibuster entails, it means she has to stand on the senate floor and talk for 13  straight hours and talk in order for the bill to not reach the governor's desk for him to sign. She is not allowed to stop, either. No breaks, no sitting down or resting, no eating, no drinking, no using the restroom, nothing but talking for the entire time. If she can talk continually till midnight, they cannot pass the bill.
Well, guess what? This superhero of a woman did it. Senator Davis, a single mother and a Harvard law alumn, asked people from all around the nation and the world to send in their abortion testimonies for her to share and to keep the filibuster going. If she was to stop once, she would be out and they could pass the bill.
Armed with a pair of bright pink Nike sneakers, she talked the entire time. Many of her male colleagues would not even pay attention to her. She was constantly nitpicked at the rules, especially when one of the senators helped her adjust her back brace, saying this was in violation of the rules.
BUT HERE'S THE KICKER: a fellow female senator pointed out that she did not sit or lean on anything as this was being done, and the rules were written in male pronouns, therefore they did not technically apply to her anyway! Talk about engrained misogyny.

Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D) (right), also is a woman of note in this whole debacle. She tried her best to make Davis' filibuster count, adding countless support to the cause and in order to extend the filibuster. Most of her male colleagues elected to ignore her as well, in which she responded with the following:

At what point must a female senator raise her hand, or her voice, to be heard over the male colleagues in the room?

You go Senator Van de Putte. You go.

Davis' talk was broadcasted live the entire time, journalists keeping people updated every step of the way.
Then, as she neared the end of the final hour, she was silenced. They claimed she was in violation of the guidelines, mentioning sonograms which were considered "irrelevant" to the topic (which actually isn't irrelevant at all).
She continued to stand, and as soon as they tried to silence her, the people in the gallery screamed.
They could not be silenced. They continued the filibuster themselves.

This is what the gallery sounded like in the last 10 minutes of the filibuster:


When the people refused to move, Representative Mary Gonzales tweeted a picture of a bunch of state troopers coming in to arrest the civil disobedience. Unfortunately, the GOP representatives that supports the bill then decided that the ruckus "interfered with their vote" and they voted AFTER MIDNIGHT, which is in direct violation of their regulation.

Basically, they broke a law to make a law.

During the filibuster:"Oh, sorry Ms. Davis. You have to follow these strict guidelines for your filibuster. Rules are rules."
When they decide to vote after midnight: "Wait, what are rules again?"

The GOP actually changed the date on the books to reflect that the vote was made before midnight, instead of after. Someone caught it before they changed it. Oh boy, aren't you in trouble.

BUT, IN AN AMAZING TURN OF EVENTS:

Our girl Wendy did it! She represents thousands of Texan women and her passion and bravery paid off!

However, this is not the end. What to take away from this incident is this: the government will not hesitate to forward their own agenda by any means necessary, even if that means breaking laws already in place.

They have ignited something they cannot stop.

Change is coming, folks. Especially with several other bills in place, such as the vote on Prop 8 in California, the DOMA equal marriage act, and SCOTUS also passing today a law allowing restrictions on voting based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. In other words, they just flung us back into some of the darkest parts of our past. 

I leave you with this. Get pumped, revolution is on it's way.

Fight the patriarchy.

Till next time xx,

Sierra