Nasty Messages at YouTube

I can't say that I'm not surprised about the nasty messages that people have been leaving me at a YouTube video (above - apologizes for the poor quality...I had an awful camera at the time) I created last year. In the video, which was intended to be a response to another size-related video called Fat Rant, I talked about issues that petite women face. Comments seemed to have spiked over the past few weeks, with many of them being nasty. Messages include the following:

This is so pathetic it almost sounds like a joke!! Are you kidding me hun? Go cry me a river.

1. Plus sizes are ugly too. Ever seen a mu mu? 2. Joy's rant was about REAL discrimination. You're just missing the point. Not having pretty clothes is NOT the same as facing systematic discrimination in the workplace, in health care, in education, in the media, in practically ever aspect of life. Weight discrimination isn't just common, it's accepted. So, seriously, get over your vanity and open your eyes to *real* issues of inequality.

Oh. My. God. What a colossal waste of time. It is repulsive and shocking to watch the entire US population point fingers at each other and continually victimize themselves. It is SICK that this woman has so little going on in her life that she can devote enough time to whining about being short that she can actually call herself a "petite activist." This person embodies the root of what is wrong with the united states.

Perhaps I should have talked a little more about social issues that petite women may face, including issues that are career-related. I have mentioned these topics in some of my replies, but of course, the readers don't really acknowledge them. My worry is that if people don't really listen, then it ever be acknolweged as an issue at all?

Message from reader re petite sizes

I recently received the following message via email from my main page:

a) Most petite people are petite in height mainly (i.e. are notpetite-petite), and are perfectly willing to buy pants or tops that will onlyneed to be simply hemmed. And many taller petites can sometimes fit nicely intoregular collections. Especially when given the difficulties associated with purchasing petite-specialty clothing. Setting up a vicious cycle, perhaps.

b) Potential factors contributing to the viscous cycle of petites nt buying petite clothing, and thus retailers not seeing the demand via profits. Complaining will get attention, but spending loads of money will attract theattention of those that really matter. You've mentioned some of these negative factors before: higher prices, less selection, fugly clothes, specialty-petite stores that are fugly (and expensive too), clothes that fit 5'1 but are too short for 5'3" (my height and a more popular petite height given a bell curve distribution, so I'll just head on over to the regular section since it is always easier to hem than to add material), etc.

c) Nation-wide, there are not that many really short AND skinny people - those less likely to be able to fudge it with regular clothing. You often mention Asian girls, but many of them are not that skinny and not that short, especially non HK/Japanese Asians. Stereotypically the Canadian-born Asians are neither as well. MOST cities outside of the Asian-congregating ones are populated with not so-petite Asians. In cities outside of Toronto (even if there is a healthy Asian population), I'm always amazed at the selection of XS/0 clothing on the sales rack! Mass retailers with stores across the country (Canada), may be unwilling to invest in a petites collection for only a few select stores.

d) Yes, in cities like Toronto there are more petite-petite girls, but when you look at it proportionately (pun intended), it is STILL a niche market. I'm not an expert in mass retail, but apparently companies really do need to move MASSIVE amounts of merchandise in order to be healthily (and thus shareholder-friendly) profitable.

Do you think this is, once again, a misunderstanding of what petite truly means (not just the individual poster, but mass marketing in general?) Again, hemming doesn't necessarily work, even if one is a taller petite, at 5'3" or 5'4" (don't forget that there are lots of average-heighted women (5'4" to 5'7"), and sometimes even taller women, who can fit into petites.) The petite pant has a shorter rise. So in order for the pant to fit properly, one actually has to cut of the legs, redo the rise, and then sew the legs back on. A lot of work, no? And not to mention, expensive. I guess people would just rather have a baggier pant. Not too professional-looking, IMHO. I could go on about tops and how altering actual shirt length can change its shape, but I don't want to repeat myself. Anyway, it's not just the "petite-petite" as the person calls it who need petite sizes, but more "typically sized" petites and plus-petites as well. One only has to look at the Fact or Fiction section from Petite Boutique and Myth vs. Fact from 5ft2in. Gravitating towards the regular sizes section and not supporting petites doesn't help the cause.

Reopening the Size Zero is Curvy debate from June 22

I was going to write about another topic today, but felt that I had to get this out of the way first. I recently received a very late anonymous reply/comment from a post dated June 22 where I wrote about size zero and its "curvyness." In this reply, the poster called me an "idiot" and went on to say that the reason why larger sizes are "less curvy" was because it's a "time- and cost- effective method." OK, fine. It's pretty obvious, based on the size charts that I posted up. But did she (I'm assuming that the poster is a she) have to call me an idiot? I'm open to debate, but I think it could have been written another way. So yes, I am re-opening this topic for debate. On June 22, I posted sizing charts from several different stores, comparing a smaller size (size 0 or 2) with size 12 and the waist-to-hip (WHR) ratio of these sizes. According to many studies, the "ideal"/"curvy" WHR is approximately 0.7 (which many actresses and female icons have).

Here are the size charts I posted up (you can also find them by clicking here):

J. Crew:

Size 0 is: 24" waist; 34" hips. 24/34= approx. 0.706 WHR (At J.Crew, a 0P is 23" waist, 33" hips, which works out to approx 0.7!)

Size 12: 31" waist, 41" hips. 31/41= approx. 0.756 WHR (12P is 30" waist, 40" hips or a WHR of 0.75. J.Crew does not make 14 or 16 in petite (neither does Banana Republic)).

Jenny Yoo: (bridesmaids dresses)

Size 0: 25" waist; 35" hips. 25/35= approx. 0.714 WHR (no petites)

Size 12: 32" waist; 42" hips. 32/42= approx 0.762 WHR

Talbots:

Misses and Petites:

Size 2: 24.5" waist; 34.5" hips. 24.5/34.5 = approx. 0.71 WHR (in petites, the waist is 24" and the hips, 34". Therefore the WHR in petites is approx. 0.706)

Size 12: 30" waist; 40" hips. 30/40= 0.75 WHR. (In petites, the waist is 29.5" and the hips = 39.5". 29.5/39.5= approx. 0.747 WHR.

Talbots Woman and Woman Petite:

Size 12W: 30.5" waist; 41.5" (lower) hips. 30.5/41.5=0.734 WHR (Unlike non-plus petites, the waist and hips have the same measurements. Therefore the Woman Petite WHR is also 0.734)

So based on the size charts, would you say that size 0 is curvier? Do you think manufacturers should do a better job when it comes to sizing? In other words, rather than adding one inch to the waist and hips (and bust if it is a dress) as the size increases, should they try to keep the ratio as close to the sample size as possible (I also realize that sample sizes aren't necessarily the smallest size a company makes)? Why do you think larger sizes are "less curvy"?

I am SURPRISED!

Are there really people who have no clue what vanity sizing is? According to the March results of my survey, 30% repsonded that they had no clue! I mean, HELLO!!!!! Why do you think size zero is so common now and why did Marilyn Monroe wear a size 14 when her measurements were 36 (38?)-24-36 (or something to that extent)? No WAY is that a size 14 by today's standards (so yes, your intro to Women's Studies prof has been lying to you).