Do you ever wonder why all of your clothes are different sizes? Do you ever struggle to find something that fits without trying on multiple options first? No? You must be new to the world of women’s sizing. Sit back and join Alyssa as she tears apart the industry-standard manipulative sizing tactics geared toward female shoppers.

I’m sick of my body being used and manipulated as a marketing tool by brands who think they can outsmart consumers with their strategic sizing. In a time when people rarely make their own clothes or enlist others to customise clothing for them, sizing exists to make shopping easier. However, sizing has become a mind game, often running large in some brands that use vanity sizing techniques because they think it will boost body positivity while other brands run small to promote exclusivity. Sizing is no longer about measurement, at least not for women’s clothes.

Just to note, when I speak about women’s and men’s clothing, I am referring to how clothing is categorised in stores. Of course, anyone can buy clothes from whichever section they want, and it’s also important to note that gender is not a binary. However, clothes are usually targeted for one gender or the other in this binary. 

In women’s sizing, clothing sizes are never consistent between brands, and sometimes not even within one brand. There are countless ways to size a piece of clothing, but for ease, I’ll focus on pants. First, there is the classic categorical sizing, which includes small, medium, large, and plus sizing. Most pants aren’t sold like this since pants need to fit pretty well and the few options in categorical sizing would not accommodate that many body shapes. Most often, only sweatpants and some leggings are sized this way. Then, there is numerical sizing, which would be 0, 2, 4, etc, usually sticking to even numbers. Sometimes there will be the occasional brand that wants to be different and really confuse their shoppers by also throwing odd numbers in there. Numerical sizing is very common in all pants, especially more structured pants like jeans or dress pants. Then we have the pants based on waist measurement, such as 25, 26, 27, etc. Again, this is much more common than categorical sizing for pants, especially for jeans.

Already, this is too much to handle for me. But that’s not where it stops. Some stores have their own sizing systems, such as one of my mother’s favourite stores, Chico’s. Chico’s sizing for every single piece of clothing ranges from a 000 to a 4, but they’re not just for petite women. Sizes progress as such: 000, 00, 0, .5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4. Good luck trying to figure out that extreme vanity sizing.

Just one example on the other end of the spectrum is the famous athleisure and exercise brand, Lululemon. I cannot speak for every size or every person of course, but when trying to find a pair of leggings in my size, the size guide instructed me to size up two whole sizes. This type of note is common on brand websites, which I find strange because if they are aware that their clothes do not fit correctly, I’d assume that they would want to resolve that problem. Of course, though, that would not spread their brand’s message. As a workout brand, I would not be surprised if the purpose of such small sizing is related to how the former CEO from 2013 claimed that women with large thighs were to blame if they did not fit into their leggings or if they were too sheer. In the same year, The Huffington Post exposed them for purposefully keeping larger sizes in the back instead of being displayed in the main part of the store, rarely restocked those sizes in current designs, and sometimes the larger clothes even ended up in piles instead of folded stacks for easy access. Despite their apologies, Lululemon’s heavily skewed sizing still fat shames their potential and existing consumers. If it’s not exclusionary behaviour, their intention is to at least encourage their consumers to exercise more with the message that they must lose weight and that their bodies are bigger than they believed themselves to be.

Clearly, the problem is that no two brands use the same patterns to design their pants, so every purchase is a guessing game unless it involves a dressing room. One question that I desperately want someone to answer is what those numerical sizes mean. They are not based on any measurement and differ store to store, so what am I supposed to do with that information? According to research conducted by True Fit, a company that helps consumers find their correct sizes across brands, sizes can vary about five inches in waist measurement for just one style of jeans. Their data indicate that a woman’s high-waisted size 6 or a 28 can vary between 25.5 inches to 32.0 inches around the waist. Considering that a size 28 should already be based on measurement, I wanted to doubt the validity of that statistic. However, I know that I have several different sizes in my own drawer right now, even when the sizes claim to be the measurement themselves. I pulled out my tape measure from a sewing kit I use once a semester to sew on rogue buttons, and sure enough, the sizes on a couple of the waistbands differed by one to one and a half inches, depending on the brand. 

I recently went shopping with my co-Editor-in-Chief, Gavin, because he needed some new jeans. We ventured into American Eagle, to the men’s side, and scoured the shelves for jeans in his size that he liked. Once we found two acceptable pairs, he paid, and we left. I was shocked at how sure he was that they would fit. Yes, he shops at American Eagle for jeans, but I also often buy their clothes. And yet I feel the need to try on everything I buy there or risk returning it because there is never any consistency even within one brand. Also, how am I supposed to remember what size I am at each and every store when it differs so much?

You might be wondering where I’m going with this. In my Consumer Behaviour class, we discussed how many stores that sell men’s and women’s clothes organise their stores with women’s clothes in the front and men’s in the back because they know women — such as mothers, wives, girlfriends, etc — often shop for the men in their lives. The thought is that on the way to the men’s section, they stop when they see something they like for themselves. Stores are aware that men often do not do the shopping for themselves, thus their sizing is simple. As a point of comparison, men’s sizes for pants, specifically jeans or other structured pants, are almost exclusively based on the measurement of the waist and the measurement of their inseam. Clearly, a major reason why men’s sizes are so straightforward and consistent is because brands know that men are often not there in the store to try it on themselves.

In my experience, when I try things on, whether it is in the store’s dressing room or at my house after ordering several options, it can go one of two ways. The first is that nothing fits. I find it really difficult to find clothes that fit me, so shopping is often incredibly frustrating. But sometimes when trying on several options, multiple items will fit. It feels like a score, and if I have the means and I feel like I will actually wear the pieces, I buy or keep those items because I played a game of chance and won. Also, in terms of online returns, sometimes they are too much of a hassle to follow through with, so if the item is pretty good, I’ll keep it, too. I believe this is also part of the mind game that brands play on consumers. If we do not settle for good enough, we may not find anything. And then, many people continue to shop after they have already bought one item in case they can find something better. Inconsistent sizing leads to overshopping, which leads to extra purchases. Coincidence?

Now, what would be this article without a solution? I have rarely ever seen women’s pants marked by their inseam as well as waist, and that seems like an easy start to the solution. However, since women’s body types are more likely to vary around the hips than men’s, I suggest we add a third size indicator, hip size. I also suggest we stop lying about the measurements and actually measure the fabric in the way the tag suggests, instead of in whatever method the company sees fit. 

Something as important as sizing should not be a subjective decision that brands can make for themselves. If they want to include more sizes, they should expand their size range in both directions instead of adjusting every size to mean something new. Shopping is not this difficult for men, and it’s time to stop treating women like an entirely different species. Everyone deserves well-fitting clothes that do not require hours to find. 

Time is money, and women’s time is just as valuable. But, of course, that is a different issue for a different day.