Guest Post: Sizing in Stitchery

This piece is reproduced with permission of the author, who has been a good friend of mine for years. Please note that I know NOTHING about sewing, so I'm taking her word for all of this :)

Most of you know that I frequent estate sales fairly regularly. I do know that some people get depressed at the thought; I figure the things they're leaving behind were things that these people loved, and would have preferred to see them loved by another generation, rather than ending up in the local land-fill.

I don't collect Hummels. I don't collect depression glass, or milk glass, or cigarette lighters. (It's hard enough to walk past a smoke house, much less if I had a couple of hundred old lighters begging to be used...) I collect pre-1900 sewing machines, fountain pens, antique medicine tins, and free-range wads of cat fuzz. I have yet to find the latter at any estate sales, but my collections of the previous three are growing.

Inadvertently, I am gathering a fairly substantial collection of old sewing patterns.

Now I don't know what rock y'all have been hiding under, but in case you were unaware, over the last ten years at least there has been a great deal of complaint over the Sudden Expansion Of Waist Lines. "Sizes haven't changed! People are getting fatter! It's an epidemic! Pandemic! OMG!FATTEEZ are taking over!"

I do not have the Current-Accepted Build. I am finding that as I attempt to find period-correct costuming for the mid- to late Victorian period, or the range between 1850 and 1890. For that period, while I am considerably taller than the accepted norm, my proportionate sizing is not at all unusual. (Well, it wouldn't be if I hadn't gained about fifty pounds.)

In looking for a pattern for a Berlinischer woolwerk handbag, or specifically the instructions for assembling said handbag, I came across a bag of patterns I had picked up for a dime apiece at the same sale I got the parlour-cabinet White.

The White was in the possession of a very elderly woman who had gotten the 1924 machine as a present new and continued to use it until less than a week before her death, though she had a newer one. (Her grandchildren got it for her. She took it out when they were visiting, sewed a couple of buttonholes with it, then put it right back in the closet when they left.)

In addition to that machine, she had patterns that dated from the late 20s up to the 80s. All of them had been used to make a muslin; most of those were included in the individual envelopes.

And, for those of you who do not sew, on the backs of those envelopes were the approximate expected measurements of the wearer.

One of the most common things I see listed on current pattern sites is "I wear an 8! How come I wear a 12 in your pattern?" with the response Sewing patterns are sized smaller than off-the-rack clothing.

The rack-stores, anything from Sears up to Neiman Marcus, say The old sizes were too small for modern women, prompting a complete re-vamp of size numbers to today's current sizing. These are more natural to the size of the modern woman, and should serve her well.

Oh, yeah?

Head yourself out to one of those stores. Take a tape measure with you, and start grabbing Size 8s off the rack. Take down the waist measurement of each, noting the manufacture of each. There is consistency within the individual manufacturer, but not across the manufacturers themselves. The waist size can be anything from 24 inches to 28, keeping in mind that the so-called waist is actually three or four inches below where your natural waist actually is.

Don't believe me? Take a strip of 1/4 inch elastic, and tie it around your middle. Stand up, sit down, dance around the room. The elastic will end up not two inches above your hips, but right about where the short-ribs are. That, ladies and gentlemen (and d0nn13), is your natural waist. What the modern sizing is actually measuring is almost onto the hips.

Then go to your local fabric and crafts store. JoAnns, Hobby Lobby, Wal*Mart, or whatever your equivalent is, and start pulling out patterns. You should be able to get a hold of McCalls, Butterick, Simplicity, and perhaps Vogue or Burda. Note the New And Improved Waist Sizing here? Here is a pointer to Simplicity's version of Standard Sizes By Inches.

Note anything interesting? About, say, how a woman's 18 is virtually the same size as a Plump Girl's? And a size 8? Why, it's the same size as a girl's 14.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I wore a girl's 14 when I was in junior high school. No boobs, no waist, no hips; all the curvature of a yard of pump-water. When I was at Arizona State, I wore an 8 everywhere but the bust. I was a lot taller, and had defined curves.

Apparently, the New And Improved sizing means that once you have hit the age of ten, you are supposed to stay the same size as that ten year old.

This is "healthy"?

Now we drift back toward those patterns. Here, I know. We'll grab one. It's a business-suit type pattern, what would later become known as a Power Suit. The copyright date on it is 1967, and along the back envelope flap, we have the ubiquitous Range Of Sizes.

This pattern is a Misses 16. A larger-than-normal but not grossly obese size.

The measurements for a 16 are 44-1/2" bust, 39" waist, 46" hips.

Not a size twenty-six, but a size sixteen.

My God. If I add about ten inches to the bust, I could fit into a size sixteen!

Okay, let's slide that one back into the box, and pull out another one. This one's for a nice formal dress. It's dated from 1952, and it's a Vogue pattern. Now keeping in mind that Vogue ideally mirrored the haute couture of the day, the pattern in question is definitely fitted. The instructions, in fact, suggest that you try on your muslin wearing the appropriate foundation garments, meaning that it was designed to be worn with a corset. Oh, not one of those ungodly pigeon-breasted S-form jobbies from 1910, but something that would provide firm support from beneath.

Again, we are looking at a size sixteen.

And again, we have measurements of 44" bust, a 36" waist, and 46" hips. Vogue makes it a bit harder to find their sizing, but here, again, is a link.

Neat, huh? Admittedly the Today's Fit is a bit closer to their original, but their Vintage Vogue patterns are all sized with the New And Improved sizing.

Butterick? Same thing, if not a bit worse; their patterns used to run small in the original.

Well, thinks I, sliding that one back in, too. Interesting, hey?

The oldest pattern I have is from 1946. The sizes are still consistent. But never fear! There are sites on the 'web that have original patterns! And I went to look at them.

Sizes - such as we find above - are not widely used until the mid- to late 40s. Prior to that? Waist and/or bust sizes, depending on the garment. Skirt patterns from 1890 - yes, I found some, and no, I'm not buying 'em (at least not yet) - are grouped by size. The smallest I found in a woman's size was a 24 - that was the finished waist band size, which meant that the prudent woman would be corsetted in to a 20" - and went all the way up to a 52.

Fifty-two.

That's inches, lads, lasses, and d0nn13.

And no, not those are not Maternity Measurements. Maternity was a completely different department - the waist was not bound at all; you wore a Maternity Corset (which was sized according to your hips, and tied almost up by the shoulders, so the baby was held up by the thing) and your gowns were basically prettily printed sacks; the skirt hung from straps over the shoulder, and the blouse hung loosely over it. That was, of course, when you weren't simply in a "Maternity Wrapper", which had an interior lacing, so that even if you were overwrought by your condition, your modesty was still preserved.

Imagine that. They had fat women - and presumeably men, though their shirts were constructed very differently, buying fabric strictly by width and sewing selvage to selvage and gathering at the neckline - during the Civil War! And afterwards!

Okay, let's go back to the patterns. Now we'll start leafing forward. Here, we'll stop in the 1970s (oh my God, please tell me I never wore my hair like that).

Pattern sizes in 1972 are roughly the same as 1967.

My collection is not complete; there is not another pattern until 1979. Here, there is a drastic difference.

On the McCall's pouch, there isn't even a size that permits anybody to have a bust measurement bigger than 40 inches...and that is a dreadfully unfashionable Size twenty.

Waists are six inches smaller than bust, and the hip measurement is five inches larger than the waist. This, then, would be when the style officially dropped waists from the natural waistline down onto the hips. Anybody but me remember the Empire Drop-Waist? Here it is, gals, guys, and d0nn13!

1983 had a resurgance of the high-necked blouses of the 1880s, including the tight waist, modified Gigot sleeve, and ruffles to emphasize the gazongas. Probably the only point in current fashion that I could actually buy something off the rack, though mostly I filled the thing out the way they weren't supposed to be. (And I sure as hell did not need the ruffles.)

Still, though...a 22 inch waist was a four. And a forty-four inch bust was an embarrassment, only to be seen on porn stars.

In the mid-90s, Neiman Marcus had an Italian plus-sized model bring her line of clothes into the Newport store. "Real clothes," she said proudly, "for real women." The garments were beautiful. They were well-made, they were well-designed, and they took into account that not everybody can, or indeed wants to, spend four hours a day on a treadmill and eat a half a cup of vinegar-soaked raisins before every meal.

The complaints were overwhelming. "You're saying that all women are fat," was the most popular whinge. "Real women don't look like that! Real women are proud of how they look! Nobody wants to spend their money on clothes for fat people, we want to look beautiful!" Neiman Marcus stopped carrying her clothes after six months. The line was picked up by Saks, and may well still be there. Including some absolutely delectable wedding and black-tie formal attire.

Neiman Marcus, meanwhile, doesn't even carry anything larger than a 48, and that's for men. And you'd better believe they're slim-fit, too.

Because, after all, in order to have money, you must be anorexic, or damn' near to it.

To use a horribly over-played phrase, "Fascinating."

---

...the short short version...
The current, common scream seems to be naught but "People are getting fat now! Clothing sizes prove it! You're all too disgusting to be seen, and you can't even buy patterns big enough to cover you!"

Research and factual evidence seems to prove to the contrary.

I'm almost masochistic enough to try and find out how the protesters would change their stories were the physical evidence placed before them?

Copyright sDr 2008
Do not reproduce
without express
permission of
the author

Guest Post from Down Under: Size doesn't matter

From Jes, in Melbourne, a good friend of mine on livejournal (by the way, Jes, if you want me to publish your username, I will be happy to edit this to do so; I didn't want to link to you and get you bombarded with trolls):

You know what I'm really over? People thinking they're something special because of what they look like.

No, seriously. It's stupid.

I mean, fine, yay, have body confidence, look after yourself, take a bit of pride in your appearance if it makes you feel good, keep up with the personal hygiene thing because that's a good idea-- but beyond that-- so what? Once you've slapped on some makeup and gotten some surgery, there's going to be a truth remaining-- whatever you are on the inside is still you. Same stuff that's going to be there as if you're several dress sizes larger or not wearing any makeup.

I'm sick of the "weight debate." I'm sick of the hysteria crisis about ZOMG Childhood obeeesity!OHNOEZ! I'm sick of being spammed for weight loss drugs whenever I open my email. I'm sick to fucking death of people who don't fall into the conventional standards of attractive not buying into the bullshit hate-your-body machine and then being paid out for it. I'm sick of watching people be bullied and shamed about food on The Biggest Loser, and then seeing the whole thing hailed as "healthy" and "inspirational."

I'm also sick of the misguided notion that being a certain size frees you from ridicule from the general public and internet trolls. I'm sick of seeing activists assume that unless you're over a certain size, you've never experienced crap about what size you are. I'm sick of the idea that only some people have been conditioned to hate their bodies. I'm sick of someone posting a rage about fat hatred and then some skinny person nosing in going, "Don't hate on skinny people," when it wasn't anything to DO with skinny people, but to do with discrimination and hatred. Thinking that larger people deserve to be treated like human beings, and raging about when they're not does not equal hating on skinny people.

And you know what else I'm sick of? Smugness about body size. Believe it or not, your body size does not define who you are. It says nothing about how much intelligence you have, what your feel passionately about, who you love, how you treat people, what you do for a living or how your family is. It doesn't define your worth as a human being. It isn't something to be proud of, just like being tall or white or a blonde isn't something to be proud of.

I mean, every time I hear someone smugly point out that they're some conventionally-revered body size, I think, "Congratulations! You fall into the socially-acceptable guidelines either because you conformed and dieted, or because you were blessed with genetics which no one had any control over! GO YOU!" I mean, really. Boasting about conforming doesn't make you anything special, and boasting about your luck in the genetic lottery is just stupid. It's like the idiotic little snobby fuckers who I went to school with who used to brag about their parents' cars, like those cars were their achievements.

So yeah, I see "Look at me, I'm a size two!" following a bunch of insults levelled at larger people a completely petty comment. Why show off about your size like it matters? Evidently, if you're leaving rude comments on someone's blog because they dare question the mindset of a society which rewards you for being a size two to the detriment of others, you've already proven yourself to have a pretty pathetic personality. And no diet, or genetic luck, is going to get rid of that.

And no, it's not about body pride. It's one thing to say, "I'm a size two and I like my body and I feel good," it's another thing to use it like it's some sort of insult or leveller after paying out larger people. It doesn't strike me as the behaviour of someone who feels good about themselves to do that shit, either... generally people with confidence don't go out of their way to find people to bully.

I think it's, that, for a lot of people, "size two" is all they have. They can be ugly or stupid or dislike themselves a lot, but if they're a size two, that's their inch, their piece of power in a world that they don't hold many cards in. Why shouldn't it be-- look how revered the size two body is.

And the thing is, if fat people start liking their bodies and feeling okay about themselves and not caving into the diet/hate-yourself industries, what happens? Suddenly size doesn't matter anymore. Suddenly your being a size two doesn't count for shit. It's just another body size, nothing special, you're not a unique and beautiful snowflake and all the rest of it.

And no, this isn't an attack on people who are size twos. (What is that, anyway? ...That's a six in Australian sizes, right? I'm currently in size eight Aussie clothing. And if I was a size two, I'd still feel the same way, btw.) It's an attack on people who think that "I'm a size two!" is a wonderful way to put someone else in their place, and that it makes them more worthwhile than someone who isn't a size two. It's an attack on "body pride" that only comes with insulting other people about the size of their bodies, as though being thin rocks because there are people bigger than you and you get to pick on them.

It's body size. Unless you're living in a society which tells you yours is wrong, wrong wrong, or you're a professional athlete or a bodybuilder or something, what is there to be proud of? (I can totally understand people who have the body pride thing in spite of being ostracised for what they look like, in the same way I can understand, say, gay pride. It's having pride in who you are in a world that doesn't want you to. I think that's cool.) But-- and this isn't an attack on thin people-- we need Thin Pride just like we need White History Month and The Penis Monologues and the Miss Able-Bodied Pageant.

Jes is responding to some comments I received from a troll, comments that I will leave up so that people can see just how cruel and disgusting our detractors can be. The troll had mentioned being a size two, as if that actually makes him/her/it superior. I'm sorry to say that a size two friend was upset when Jes mentioned that being a size two wasn't something to be proud of. Her intention was not to say that thin people are bad, but that your size doesn't mean that you are better than someone else, just like being white, able-bodied, or male shouldn't be a point of pride. It's especially offensive when a person is proud of the trait that puts them in the privileged class. To that person, I apologize that you misunderstood her intention, and I want you to know that I do not think ill of thin people--and I will be covering that subject in a future post.

Rape can happen to anyone, and it isn't the victim's fault

A powerful guest post from livejournal friend aebhel, on physical appearance and rape:

Seriously, if I hear the phrase "too ugly to get raped" one more time, I am going to flip the fuck out.

For the all the ignorant misogynist morons out there,


1. Ugly women get raped. Pretty women get raped. Toddlers and grandmothers, women in wheelchairs, women with mental handicaps, bitchy women, smart women, stupid women, drunks, sluts, and nuns--they all get raped. Rapists do not go after women because they were so overwhelmingly turned on that they just couldn't help themselves. They go after women because they hate women and want to humiliate them, and raping a woman is a pretty good way of telling her that she's worthless as a human being.

2. Every single rapist is capable of stopping. Whether it's the stranger who jumps out of the bushes or (more likely) the guy who's had a few too many getting his date alone, they're all capable of stopping. If a policeman or the girl's parents wandered onto the scene, you can bet your ass he'd be able to stop. The fact that he doesn't stop when he's told to means that he doesn't want to, not that he can't.

3. Pretty women don't deserve to get raped because they 'must know they turn guys on'. Ugly women don't want to get raped because 'there's no other way they're going to get laid'. Having a rape fantasy does not mean that a person wants to actually be raped, any more than being into BDSM means that a person actually wants to be tortured.

4. You cannot and should not try to define a woman's worth on the basis of whether or not complete strangers are interested in jerking off to her pictures.

5. And finally, even handsome men can be rapists. They don't rape women because they can't get laid in other ways (many of them have wives or girlfriends), they do it because they're sick, fucked up individuals.


I can't believe any of that actually needed to be said, but the evidence all suggests that it did.

Guest Post: The things you learn about people... or don't.

One of my livejournal friends, shaysdays, had a wonderful post today, and I was generously granted her permission to post it here.

My first issue of "Good Housekeeping" arrived today. It's a gift from my mom- a whole year of the magazine she says I always flip through at her house. I probably do, but that's because I read like people watch TV- if it's there, I will look at it.

There is something vaguely creepy about this magazine. Creepy besides Dr Phil snuggling his rather diamond-bedecked wife while offering marriage advice. Let me give you the headlines:

The Makeover Issue- 122 Quick Changes for your health, body, home and happiness

Lose 30+ lbs Without Trying 9 Easy Food Changes

Save $100s on heating bills (and stay cozy)

ReDo a Room in 48 Hours On The Cheap

Look 5 Years Younger, Fast! No Diet, No Surgery

Dr Phil and Robin Share 5 Secrets of Happy Couples (Yes, you can fall in love again!)

In other words- you can totally be someone better, thinner, younger, and more organized... without any investment of real time or effort.

But well, it was a present. And so I sat down to read it.

Every article is telling yoiu you're not _____ enough, or that you need to ______. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't really call them articles, for the most part. They're bossy advice pieces.This magazine is so insidiously horrible I'm amazed women don't burn it in effigy so they don't have to actually touch one.

This is a direct quote from "5 years younger:"

Look closer- who's that lurking under all those dark, shapeless layers? "It's sort of an unwritten rule in New York that you wear black," says Linda, and this self-described utilitarian is totally with the program (we didn't try to talk her out of it- just persuaded her her to go for a tp with a little more shape, opposite). More colorphobia: she never wanted to cover her gray hairs, even though they made her mane frizzy and unmanageable, and had never been big on color cosmetics, tending to leave her beautiful face bare."

Y'ALL I AM SMACKING MY HEAD AGAINST THE PIANO. (I moved the computer to on top of the piano for Superbowl.)

Let me reword that paragraph the way it plays in my head:
Who's that frumpy little thing? Awww... look! You picked up one style trend, let's work with that so it looks like you're actually dictating things. Now, that streak of gray hair in front you've got? That's making your hair unmanageable. It's not that you have naturally curly hair. (Let's straighten that, which takes about 10 minutes, add some hair color, that's an hour and half every few weeks) Also, we'll give you props for having a beautiful face, but no makeup? That is a crime against nature (and our advertisers) so let's slap some pigment on your beautiful (BARE!) face.

Seriously, this magazine is like an abusive boyfriend- it gives you just enough compliments to build you up, then with the other hand, whallops you with diet, 'fashion' tips to 'minimize your figure,' and a healthy helping of, "relationships, home, and children are pretty much all on you." At least Cosmo has the decency to give tips on orgasms. The closest thing to sex here is a note about their new (online) sex columnist talking about how she'd rather have a good night's sleep than sex.

NEXT MONTH IN GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: How to vacuum in pearls.

Okay, it's not all bad- I found three things I like. One, is a nice picture of Jaimie Lee Curtis with a haircut I'm going to steal. (A gray haircut, by the way! How they didn't airbrush it blonde is beyond me) A recipe for Balsamic Chicken and Pears that looks really good. And there was a piece on how to stop procrastinating, which, although it didn't actually include the phrase, "Limit Livejournal Time," was still relevant to my interests.

So I don't think I'll cancel the subscription. I'm sure my mom meant well. I just can't help but be angry that Cosmo gets blamed for making women hate their bodies and change their lives to fit some gender construct, when they're not actually giving you tips on how and why to do it- all these housekeeping magazines seem to be less about the house and more about the keeping- a man, your 'figure,' your sanity,' and most importantly- your status quo.

Sometimes, other people say it better than I can

So I'm going to quote the very wise Meowser so that this statement gets read by more people:

...telling us that thin women live longer and are healthier than fat women is a little like telling poor women that if they just made five times as much money their financial problems would be solved. If there is no concrete way of turning most poor women affluent, that piece of information is completely irrelevant.

From a comment on Harriet's blog entry here.