Real sizes, real bodies

By her measurements in the 1950s, Marilyn Monroe was a size 12. In 2006 sizes, she would be a size 6. People large, small, tall and short worry about their sizes, but it seems that women worry more than men. \nWhen men shop for a pair of jeans, they walk up to the Target "Wall" of Levi's, find their favorite fit (loose vs. tight), find their measurements (e.g. 30x30), and purchase them. \nWhen women shop, every factor in existence affects what they try on and end up purchasing. There are no measurements to help us out, save for a sizing chart on a Web site. "Misses" sizes are even numbers from 0 to 20. Apparently manufacturers think women are afraid of their measurements.\nThe United States had clothing size standards from 1958 until the early 1980s, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The old system began with size 6, yet the measurements that made up that size 6 were much smaller than they are today.\nThus, the era of Marilyn was not any kinder to women's bodies than it is now. Humans are vain -- when the standards dropped, the sizes followed. At Abercrombie & Fitch, you can buy a 00, one inch larger than the original size-6 waist. Different brands have slightly different systems to make customers loyal. If you're a size 4 at Gap and a size 8 at H&M, where will you shop? Gap is hoping you're vain and you will choose them.\nThese weird sizes make it difficult to find clothes that fit. While shopping at the Buckle, freshman Jessica Stiener said finding jeans that fit is her biggest shopping problem. Lucky Brand jeans fit her best, but her size fluctuates depending on the brand. I empathize -- this is frustrating no matter your size.\nIn Dallas, an entrepreneur developed a system to make women's jeans fit better and alleviate this problem, according to an article in The New York Times. Fit Technologies uses the three most common body shapes, straight, curvy and pear-shaped, to help the current system better fit women's bodies. A size 8 would now be an 8.1, 8.2, or 8.3, depending on shape. Yet the participating companies aren't eager to continue because they claim this costs them more money.\nStill, the base sizes are those meaningless even numbers. Also, women have more than three body shapes. We don't need numerically coded names - we need real numbers. The women's clothing store Vanity in the College Mall uses waist and inseam measurements instead. \nStore Manager Michelle Fenwick said the response is positive. With its variety of styles within the system, she said the jeans can fit more body types.\nLet's move in this direction. Women shouldn't be afraid of their real measurements and I don't believe that most are. Using small numbers as code for average measurements only feeds into our culture of negative body images. Let's demolish the teeny even-numbered sizes and pre-designated pant lengths.\nWhat do short, regular and long mean? I have no idea. But I do know that our bodies aren't measured in words or double zeros, so our clothes shouldn't be either.