T\It Hardly Seems Fair

[Georgette]

This past weekend as I was looking at the adds in the paper I was courious as to what percentage of them were for women, in one paticuler stores add there was 24 pages of womens and ladies adds and 4 pages for men, it is hardly fair and people wonder why we cross dress LOOK at all the choice we can have as ladies. When men have basic looks and selection, we get all the pretty stuff.:rolleyes:

[Shelly Preston]

I think you may be correct about the unfair ness of the split

I mean imagine giving the guys four pages

Do they need that much :D

[Marla S]

I think fair is not the right word.
Manufacturer meet the demand and don't really care for fairness or asymmetries.
Obviously the majority of men doesn't want more, so they don't get more.

As quite a few CDs probably wouldn't want to buy a skirt or heels that are labeled "men's wear" that asymmetry is even a benefit.

Personally I am glad that I have overcome most inner restrictions and now have 28 pages of adds :D

[BarbaraTalbot]

I mean imagine giving the guys four pages

Do they need that much :D

Really! 4 whole pages.
What did they do to spread it out, one page for blue dockers, one for khaki, one for blue walk shorts, one for tan?

Oh wait, they could have gone 6 pages if they devoted a page each to the two types of guy shoes., black and brown.

[KimberlyS]

Georgette, Life is not fair. So get over it and just go shopping for femme clothes. Life is too short, so enjoy it the best you can. Look at the positive and not the negative in life. I look at it as I have a wide selection of masculine and feminine clothes.

:thumbsup: :jumping: :GD: :Party2:

[Karren H]

If being unfair means getting less advertising then you can hurt me, whip me and beat me with a spoon!! :D. Getting less advertising to me is in the same class as getting less junk mail, getting less email, watching less comercials on TV and having to go to fewer worthless meetings!!

None of which are a good excuse to crossdress btw.. Lol

Karren

[Deborah Jane]

24 pages!! I,m glad i,m a C/Der, i,ve got more choice:heehee: They must have struggled to fill 4 pages with with mens clothes though!!

[Deborah Jane]

If being unfair means getting less advertising then you can hurt me, whip me and beat me with a spoon!! :D. Getting less advertising to me is in the same class as getting less junk mail, getting less email, watching less comercials on TV and having to go to fewer worthless meetings!!

None of which are a good excuse to crossdress btw.. Lol

Karren

Yes they are, i might even use them!!!

[Michelle04240]

Seems pretty fair from my side of the fence :D

[battybattybats]

I think fair is not the right word.
Manufacturer meet the demand and don't really care for fairness or asymmetries.
Obviously the majority of men doesn't want more, so they don't get more.

As quite a few CDs probably wouldn't want to buy a skirt or heels that are labeled "men's wear" that asymmetry is even a benefit.

Personally I am glad that I have overcome most inner restrictions and now have 28 pages of adds :D

Hmm.. and yet the womens clothing industry still insists on making most of the clothing only for a minority of sizes. Almost every woman I know complains that they cannot easilly find clothing in their size. Almost all find most of the clothing is too small and those few I know who are thin enough complain they find most of the clothing is too long and they shop from the childrens section and/or wear short skirts as mid-length etc.

Media reports and consumer studies have shown this problem is massive and yet, despite the clear financial insentive for making the majority of clothing to fit the majority of women the industry does not do so.

Maybe most guys would like more variety in clothing? Maybe most guys would like to return to 18th century lace and ruffles on their shirts? Who knows? Certainly the clothing industry would have no idea.

[Marla S]

Hmm.. and yet the womens clothing industry still insists on making most of the clothing only for a minority of sizes.
Minority of sizes yes, minority of women no.

Almost every woman I know complains that they cannot easilly find clothing in their size.
Of course. If you have a good fashion sense, everything that doesn't fit perfectly is the wrong size.
The more you know what you want the harder it will get to find it. If your budget is limited the chance will decrease further.

When I seriously started to buy fem clothes, I thought I am in clothes wonderland ... all mine.:D
Today, having developed something like my style, care more for the fit, style, colors, and have a limited budget only, it is almost as hard to find something than in drab times.:Angry3:

Only today I understand my Ex complaining that she cant find 'her' clothes.


Almost all find most of the clothing is too small
Taking lingerie sale as a measure, over here you almost exclusively will find XL and XXL sizes left (men's and women's).
Same usually holds true for other clothes.


and those few I know who are thin enough complain they find most of the clothing is too long and they shop from the childrens section and/or wear short skirts as mid-length etc.
There never will be a perfect sizing system, there never has been one, because any system has to make averages and almost no individual is the average or a prototype.

I think there are two main things that changed during the last decades.

Clothes became junk clothes: Meaning see it, buy it, take it, for a low price, it's out of fashion in three months anyway. A low price means mass production, mass production means more averaging, which means fewer will have the 'ideal' figure.

When I was a child it was quite common here that when you bought clothes that they were altered: longer/shorter/wider/narrower.
Most shops offered a respective service and the clothes were made to being altered.
The price of an item was: Garment + alteration + waiting for it.

Today hardly any shop offers this service, and the clothes hardly can be altered, because they are made with a minimum of fabric (making pants or skirts longer or wider is almost impossible today) to make it cheaper.
Hardly any customer wants this service anymore because it is expensive and you have to wait.


Media reports and consumer studies have shown this problem is massive and yet, despite the clear financial insentive for making the majority of clothing to fit the majority of women the industry does not do so.
Industry probably knows, it's their job to know, but any piece of clothes that isn't sold is a loss. As long people buy the average they will produce the average and leave special sizes for special companies, having special prices.


Maybe most guys would like more variety in clothing? Maybe most guys would like to return to 18th century lace and ruffles on their shirts? Who knows? Certainly the clothing industry would have no idea.
Same here, today you almost get everything, but you hardly get a shirt with ruffles for less than $50-100.

Having this said, of course industry not only meets the demand, but also creats it, that's interdependent.

[battybattybats]

Industry probably knows, it's their job to know, but any piece of clothes that isn't sold is a loss. As long people buy the average they will produce the average and leave special sizes for special companies, having special prices.


But that is just it. According to the reports in Australia the majority of clothes are made for sizes below the average size of women. The most common sizes of women are not the most common sizes of clothing! It's off by about 2 sizes!

It's ridiculous and it's absurd. One tv program went into several womens clothing stores and found in one of them not one item, not one, at the higher end of the average mark!

For most women, average and above, most clothing is generally bought from big department stores, where they can find only a limited selection of plainer clothing in limited numbers. The 'fashionable' items are almost all for below average sizes.

If womens clothing companies can be that absurd I don't think we can trust mens clothing companies either.

[Satrana]

The weird thing about the clothing industry is that people focus on designers and blame them for the limited choice in sizes. It has nothing to do with designers but with the purchasing managers of the clothes retailers.

Now virtually all purchasing managers for ladies fashions are women without exception. Thus it is a select number of fashion conscious women who are deliberately restricting the size range, i.e. they hate larger sized women and don't want to have their selection of fashionable clothes being seen on larger women. It is snobbish bitchiness at its worst.

I have worked with several clothing manufactures. I can assure you the production cost difference between making larger sizes is minimal, literally pennies worth. So it is not profit margins that is restricting choice but fashion despots in the retailers.

[Sheri 4242]

Really! 4 whole pages.
What did they do to spread it out, one page for blue dockers, one for khaki, one for blue walk shorts, one for tan?

Oh wait, they could have gone 6 pages if they devoted a page each to the two types of guy shoes., black and brown.

:yrtw: Great analysis, Barbara!!! :lol2: (Hey -- they could do two pages of ties -- one that is for el cheapo's -- and one for the highly expensive that will be out of style for twenty years in 12-18 months . . .



The weird thing about the clothing industry is that people focus on designers and blame them for the limited choice in sizes. It has nothing to do with designers but with the purchasing managers of the clothes retailers.

Now virtually all purchasing managers for ladies fashions are women without exception. Thus it is a select number of fashion conscious women who are deliberately restricting the size range, i.e. they hate larger sized women and don't want to have their selection of fashionable clothes being seen on larger women. It is snobbish bitchiness at its worst.

I have worked with several clothing manufactures. I can assure you the production cost difference between making larger sizes is minimal, literally pennies worth. So it is not profit margins that is restricting choice but fashion despots in the retailers.


Satrana -- PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP HOLDING THINGS IN!!! Tell us what you really think!!! :lol2: :lol2: (Sorry, gf -- I'm punchy!!! :yahoo: )

[Kate Simmons]

I haven't bought anything in a while due to having tons of stuff already and the fact that , well, now being retired I'm more or less on a fixed income and need to save my pennies. Still, that doesn't stop me from getting something nice when the new Woman Within, Roaman's or Chadwicks catalogs come to the house, especially since they usually have the option of paying three months later. I don't have a problem getting the nice stuff in size 16 from those places though and the catalog pics are pretty much representative of the actual pieces. Even though being the same company more or less, these three catalogs have slight size variations but I know what company does what and purposely order slightly larger sizes because I move around a lot.
As far as the disparity in advertising and choice for men vs women, I agree. I probably receive womens catalogs with a ratio of 6 or 7 to one vs men's. While I do like dressing nice as a guy, I've noticed myself skimming through the drab stuff whereas I will take a good deal of time looking over the pretty women's outfits and envisioning how I would look in them with a certain wig and hair color. I find it amazing how much fashion sense we develop in this manner. Looking nice either way is good but looking pretty is better, certainly can't deny that.;):happy:

[Satrana]

Satrana -- PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP HOLDING THINGS IN!!! Tell us what you really think!!! :lol2: :lol2: (Sorry, gf -- I'm punchy!!! :yahoo: )

Ohh....but I am holding things in :D You don't want to know me when I am angry...I turn green:eek: