Have clothing sizes changed over the years? (shaved, remove, women)

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by germaine2626

In the 70s (I think) there was a store called Five-Seven-Nine for very small size teens and young women who were way too tiny to fit into most clothes that were sold in department stores. When my daughter was a teen (early 2000s) anyone who wore a size nine was considered overweight by all of the teens wearing size 00, 0 and 2. I think that the sizes just got smaller not the women.

I think 5-7-9 was average at the time. This store was for average women who were tired of the average sizes being sold out in the department stores, leaving tiny sizes and large sizes on the racks. So they stocked the sizes that always sold out elsewhere, that most young women wanted.

Size 9, in the 70's wasn't "way too tiny", but in fact, slightly overweight medically. No where near the size that 9 is today, which is probably 30 pounds heavier than the jeans of the 70's size 9.

The truth is, "medically overweight" in the 70's is the same thing as medically overweight now, we just have so many people medically overweight now that we've kind of adjusted our social standards. Medical standards haven't really changed.

[jgn2013]

I'd imagine women's clothes have to take into account more than just people being heavier today. If you look at a "healthy" woman today versus in the 1970's, women today probably spend more time lifting weights, doing interval/HIIT training, kickboxing etc. Healthy looking women under 40 often have muscular legs and more muscle in their upper arms than women of yesteryear. I don't think Baby Boomer and Silent Generation women were including squats, deadlifts and power cleans in their fitness routine. That alone can account for some of the difference.

[marino760]

This is way back, but I remember my mom in the 1960s wore a size 12. She was a small woman with a nice shape, not overweight. I was a little kid but I know this because men would sometimes turn and whistle at her as she walked by. She would hold my hand and tell me not to look at them and just keep walking....LOL.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by jgn2013

I'd imagine women's clothes have to take into account more than just people being heavier today. If you look at a "healthy" woman today versus in the 1970's, women today probably spend more time lifting weights, doing interval/HIIT training, kickboxing etc. Healthy looking women under 40 often have muscular legs and more muscle in their upper arms than women of yesteryear. I don't think Baby Boomer and Silent Generation women were including squats, deadlifts and power cleans in their fitness routine. That alone can account for some of the difference.

Silent generation women didn't have 'fitness routines'. The backbreaking work of the day precluded that they would have any spare time for a 'fitness routine'.

I'm trying not to sound arrogant, but really, it would be very informative for you to learn about what constituted the daily life of a woman born in the US between 1925 and 1945, who was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth. "Squats" didn't begin to describe the workout they usually had every day, just keeping house, raising babies, doing laundry and putting food on the table.

Women of that era worked very hard, and they ate tiny portions compared to the huge plates we consider normal today. Just go into a vintage shop and look at their tiny dresses. And then make an effort to read about their lifestyles.

[Annie53]

Originally Posted by silibran

You are free to call it "vanity sizing." However the fact is that women are taller and bigger than they used to be. I think the newer sizes probably reflect reality. I am frankly surprised at the height and girth of many young women.

You can now also find larger shoe sizes. For years I struggled to find the almost impossible 10 1/2s. They are much more available than they were in 2000. Sizes of clothing and shoes have had to expand because the populace is bigger in every way than we used to be.

Please tell me how a "Size 0" reflects reality.

If the women of today are taller and bigger, they should wear a larger size rather than assign an item of clothing that used to be a "Size 12" a "Size 8" just to make them feel better about themselves.


In other words: Vanity Sizing.


I am not smaller than I was in high school, so I should be wearing a larger size now instead of a smaller size. The Size 4 jeans of today are larger than the Size 7 jeans I wore in high school. Yes, I still have a couple pair of my high school jeans......even though I cannot get them on.


You bring up the availability of a 10 1/2 shoe size.....that is because there are more women who need that size so they make them, not because they reconfigured the sizes. Notice how there is not a "Size 0" in shoes?


If it was up to me, all clothing manufacturers would have to adhere to "universal measurement/size standards"......no variations.


That way, I wouldn't have a closet full of Small, Medium and Large/Size 4, 6, 8.....and I might actually try buying clothes online. LOL

[marino760]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Silent generation women didn't have 'fitness routines'. The backbreaking work of the day precluded that they would have any spare time for a 'fitness routine'.

I'm trying not to sound arrogant, but really, it would be very informative for you to learn about what constituted the daily life of a woman born in the US between 1925 and 1945, who was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth. "Squats" didn't begin to describe the workout they usually had every day, just keeping house, raising babies, doing laundry and putting food on the table.

Women of that era worked very hard, and they ate tiny portions compared to the huge plates we consider normal today. Just go into a vintage shop and look at their tiny dresses. And then make an effort to read about their lifestyles.

I can testify to this. My mother who is still alive at 86 never lifted weights or ran or did any kind of fitness training. She worked her ass off at a dress factory, came home, made dinner for us and cleaned, did laundry got lunches ready for us to go to school. As I mentioned in a previous thread, she was quite attractive, not overweight at all. She was 5'2' and looked good enough for men to turn around and whistle at her.

[Annie53]

https://www.webmd.com/beauty/features/vanity-sizing#1

A University of Michigan study found that when a woman thinks she wears a smaller size, she buys more clothing. "What designers and manufacturers started doing was taking what was once their measurements for their size 8, for example, and putting a size 6 label on it instead, knowing that a woman would be more likely to make a purchase," Raes says.
"The problem with this method is that, while it can be psychologically encouraging for the shopper, stores have had to introduce smaller sizes to fit petite women. It's why we're now seeing size XXS."

........and Size 0.

[jade408]

This is a really interesting history of clothing sizes:
https://www.racked.com/2017/9/19/162...g-clothes-plus

[PilgrimsProgress]

Just noticed this thread started in 2013. Since then I'm sure sizes have gotten even smaller!

My weight and measurements are about the same as when I was in college a long time ago. I wore an 8 then and wear a 4 now in most things. Used to wear Medium, now wear Small.

I wish women's sizes were the same as men's which use inches instead of 'sizes'.

[oldgardener]

They fit the same for me, still wear junior sizes like I did 40+ years ago.