If they changed the sizing charts, it was before 1979 or so. At my smallest, when in my mid-teens, I had a 29" waist, which along with the rest of my measurements put me in a size 14. That would be 1978-1979 or so. And at that time I had started sewing a lot of clothing for myself, so I was pretty familiar with the standard sizing charts.
The one you've got may be based on an older sizing chart, as the one in my 1947 sewing book is similar to the sizes you list.
I agree people are getting heavier in general. It was pointed out in the early 1980s that sizes were being changed so people would think they fit a smaller size than they actually did. Heck, Red Green (aka Steve Smith) commented the same thing.
One the one hand, someone I knew went down to Disneyland with his kids. He said he and his kids were having lunch in a restaurant, sitting by the window, and were playing "Spot the Skinny Person", because there were so few. He said by skinny he meant average or even somewhat plump.
On the other hand, I grew up as a slightly chunky kid with a stocky build. Although, looking back at my photos, I was never fat, I was constantly called "fat". I'm still working on the negative self-image generated by years of being held up to some impossible physical ideal. I finally realized sometime in my 20s that my physical type wouldn't fit that image without radical plastic surgery--possibly not even then.
Anayway, I'm not sure I'd want to go back to the look of the late 1970s-early 1980s when most of the models looked like lollipops--big heads on a stick of a body.
Looking at Marilyn Monroe--who I think had a fantastic figure--even though she was an "old" size 14, she'd still be told to lose 20 lbs in today's acting business. They'd also want someone less soft and curvy and more muscular. In addition, as she had an hourglass figure, her ass is considered too big by today's standards. The current fashion is for rather narrow, boyish hips.
The magazine is from 1976, and I seem to recall it was sometime in the 70s that the charts changed, I'm not sure when. I had my first kid in '80 and was thrilled to get "back into" size 8 jeans, but somehow, now I don't think they were the SAME size 8. ;-)
Now they call the lollipops "Bobbleheads" but it's the same thing - big head, tiny body. It's ugly.
I agree totally about being real about your physical type and being comfortable with it. My point was more personal - the more "generous" measurements and "Oh, don't weigh yourself too often" feel-good philosophy left me overweight and unhappy/unconfident in my appearance. I know I don't look like I should/can. I am small-boned, and genetically meant to be little, I can't claim that I'm fit or happy with extra pounds, my aching knees tell the true story. My daughter, OTOH, is tall and curvy and has a body like Sophia Loren in her prime, she will never be "skinny" and never should be.
I think as a society we blather a lot about the evil of an obsession with thinness and have a culture that encourages people to be overweight. So Americans are fat and sometimes self-righteous about it, because dammit, at least they are not caving to that Pressure to Be Thin. Of course, nearly everything works against losing weight, from our suburban communities where you can't WALK to anything to our "value meals" and restaurant portions that are so generous they are really two meals, (because "That's what the consumer wants" because that's what the consumer has been conditioned to want) are basically designed to fatten us up. Even the "good" advice - don't weigh yourself too often, blah blah - can backfire. I now get on the scale every morning. I haven't seen much weigh loss progress yet, but I don't slit my wrists, I just remind myself it took me about 10 years to put on 30 pounds and it's not coming off in a month.
True re Monroe, though there are actresses who buck the trend and still have curves, they aren't the top box office draws making the multi-millions. Renee Zellweger looked SO much better with a fuller figure, now she's your classic Hollywood Bobblehead. She's a big girl and not meant to be that skinny, she looks sick. She looked better in Bridget Jones (at that "fat weight") than she has in years. Madonna, too - she had the Monroe Body and worked it off so now she looks all stringy and hard. I agree with the French saying that after a Certain Age, you have to choose between your face and your ass. 10-15 pounds would do Madonna's face a world of good.
Definitely agree about Renee Zellweger and Madonna. They'd both look a lot better if they were about 20 lbs, or even 10 lbs heavier. "Bobblehead" is a good description of that look.
I have a more-or-less hourglass figure, although I'd like to take about 25 lbs off of it. I'm a 16-18 now, and would like to be back to a 14-16. I did get myself down to the 12-14 range once, but couldn't stay there long. It's hell finding pants and skirts that fit when you have an 11" differential between waist and hips. I grew up absolutely hating my physical type--I'm only just starting to accept it for what it is. My mother used to try to console me, telling my I had "Child-bearing hips". As you can imagine, that wasn't much consolation. Unfortunately, I'm also not that tall (5'5"), and have broad shoulders, making me look short and wide. I have to choose clothing very carefully.
Sofia Loren in her prime was a lovely woman and your daughter is lucky to have that figure type.
One thing I learned long ago--screw the scale. MEASURE yourself once a week or so. Your measurements will often change (especially with working out) while your weight fluctuates very little. It's really a much better gauge of your progress.
*Sigh* It's a tough call. I agree with people excusing bad eating/lifestyle habits by pointing to the "pressure to be thin" while stuffing their faces with "Super-sized" or "Mega-Meals" of mostly empty calories. I love junk as much as the next person, but I try to be careful of how much I eat.
On the other hand, while I see my niece as overweight for her age due to bad eating habits, I hesitate to pressure her, remembering my own childhood. Her father was the same until he was about 17. He suddenly decided he was tired of being fat, and that was that.
Yeah, I agree re the measurements - and I have to say that even at my Advanced Age, the body responds nicely. I've lost like 2 inches off my butt, while my weight has barely budged a pound or two.
And I agree that at whatever age, it has to be the person who decides that they're tired of being fat. Any pressure from outside just tends to make you dig in and resist. That's why I think the whole focus on these Hollywood freakazoids with their eating disorders that turn them into Bobbleheads is a distraction from the real issue of the average person who would be healthier and happier if they ate less/better and exercized more. And I don't think that it's entirely a coincidence that we "got this fat" post WWII when the great exodus to the suburbs started, and nobody could walk anywhere conveniently. Combine that with the "value meal" and buy stock in Lane Bryant-type places and the Big and Tall Men's stores. It's inevitable, but the alternative isn't Bobblehead-hood. And you have to wonder why that's the media focus - "We're too fat" followed by "Celebrity Eating Disorders." Like there's no middle ground? I have no intention of ever being my high school size again, I'd be creepy-boney at that size now, but I know that at, say, even 135 lbs, my small bones will be very grateful for the lighter load, and that's not far away.
My daughter would be emaciated at that weight, but she has been blessed with tall, big boned Italian goddess genetics. She just wants to be solid and toned at her curvy proportions. It's not all about being SKINNY, and I wish it wasn't presented as such. But the size charts are fairly cold proof that we've gotten BIGGER, and we excuse it in many ways, some valid, some totally not.
Oh, and as an example of how Body Type and bone structure matters, I'm also 5'5" - but I'm currently a size 10 and way too flabby for my bone structure. I'd be happy to be a 10 and firm, of course, but firm and in shape doesn't hit until I'm a 6-8. And this is not insanely unrealistic, I was a 6-8 until my late 30s, so it's not like I'm aiming for some teenaged, pre-kids, pre adulthood body. Below an 8 and I have visible bones, and that is quite disturbing and I never want to go there.
Obviously a big difference in bone structure between the two of us.
And don't get me started on the suburbs. Since moving down here, we rarely get out for walks anymore. At the times when I'm free, it's often stupidly hot. But even worse, there are almost no sidewalks/trails anywhere around here. You often take your life in your hands walking most places.
This city was definitely not made to be pedestrian-friendly. Hell, I've seen people in this complex DRIVE their garbage the 50-100 feet to the bin and DRIVE their kids 1 block to school. I swear, if they don't use their legs more, they'll fall of. Then they can't understand why the state incidence of obesity is so high. I saw large people in Calgary, but nothing like the numbers here.
Not to mention the crap that people here tend to shovel in. I watch the kids in the food court, and think "That's going to catch up with you guys, and by the time you realize it, it will be hard to change."
Back in Calgary, neither of us were exactly considered outdoor/exercise freaks next to the population of hikers/mountain bikers/rock climbers. Here? We're considered positively fitness-obsessed because we like to go for long walks. Go figure.
Bone structure - my mother is 4'11" and 110 pounds on her fattest day. My dad was 5'8" at his tallest and if he's 140 pounds today I'll eat a bug. I'm genetically little, I'm taller but still tiny boned, size 6.5 shoes, watch bands spin on my wrist, etc.
Few places are pedestrian friendly, and in the South, with the miserable heat and humidity, you have to time walking. I walk at the gym on a treadmill, but if I have to walk outside I just feel my hair frizzing and my makeup melting.
Food court - I still remember a day in Burger King, years ago, when I was behind 3 12-13 year olds. The by far chubbiest member of the group was earnestly lecturing her slimmer friends that they were fools not to buy the value meal, because "It's the best deal."
Here there is a weird disconnect between the fatness of the population at large and the availabiity of outdoor activities, private gyms, YMCAs, and schools that seem more like sports camps than places where education is a priority. It's a socio-economic disconnect, and it's so easy to see. Go to Wal-Mart on Saturday, eyeball the average ass. Cross the intersection and go to Target. Ass size average drops 4 inches.
I DO feel pressure to be thin and in shape in this culture, because I know it really is measured here. Not in an extreme, the thinner the better way, but in an "If you look good, life is easier," way. That's just how it is.
Oh, and my mom is pushing 80. In her thirties she never cracked 100 pounds. Think Short Audrey Hepburn, married to David Niven, that's pretty much my gene pool. I can't pass off extra weight as "big bones" or "genetics," yet, despite that gene pool, I could still gain weight and look the other way while doing it.
It is a very weird disconnect. They're football-crazy here, yet if any of these people gets much exercise, I'd be surprised. The other thing we couldn't get over is that with the exception of the university grounds and the botanical gardens (which we found through a tipoff) there are no parks here. What's called a park here is a baseball diamond or football field or something. To us a park means trails and fields and woods.
That's an interesting comment about Wal-Mart vs. Target. I'll watch more carefully from now on and report back.
Oh, definitely. Thinner is easier.
My mother--5'9", but about my size. Not sure what she weighs--160-170, perhaps? I've inherited her build, but not her height. She's gone up and down. I saw pictures of her from years ago when she was over 200 lbs. Then again, as a teenager she was a tall, good-looking girl, and told me that at that age she always felt big and fat. My mother has struggled most of her life to keep her weight down.
My father is 6'2", and a big man, and overweight. I'd guess him at 225 or so. He was a beanpole as a teenager, but now he puts on weight easily--and loves to eat.
In a sense, thanks to the larger frame I can get away with some excess poundage without actually looking overweight. I've had people guess me as weighing less than I do. I've had to work since I was in my teens to keep my weight at a reasonable level. The highest I've ever been is 190 (and I took care of that once I realized what was happening) and the lowest 145. I'm about 170 right now, and if I could get rid of 15-20 lbs, I'd be happy. It won't be easy--my body seems to really like the 165-175 weight range.
The first big pattern sizing drop was in 1967 when I was in high school (you young whipper snappers) and boy oh boy was I glad to be officially a size 12. Somehow that number just didn't feel so huge as a 14 or a 16.
What really makes me angry is the skewed self image every woman in america has because of the mixed messages thrust at them 24/7.
And don't get me started on suburbs with no sidewalks! Argh!
Here in the Real South, the average size is somewhere around the present day 18 or 20, 5'4" and 200 lbs. This means that our eyes get used to fat being normal.
Sigh.
Wouldn't be wonderful if there was some sort of connection between what we see and what is really there?
Heheh. Definitely true, Bess. I'm only just starting to (sort of) see myself the way DH sees me rather than through the distorted glass I've used for years.
You are the flip of me and my daughter. I'm 5'5", she's 5'9"+, and we have the same general build, hourglass figure, which makes it SO easy to put on weight, because we gain it all over, proportionately, so it's so easy to put on poundage over a period of time and not really "see" it. But she got the Italian genes from her father, she's bigger boned and would look like a cadaver at the Model Weight for her height. Me, I'm puny-boned and look dumpy with even 20 extra pounds.
There definitely is a disconnect between self-image and reality. Mine is the opposite, I suffer from what Caroline Rea calls "reverse anorexia - I think I'm thinner than I really am." And I don't like the reality, so I'm working my ass off to change it. :-)
If they changed the sizing charts, it was before 1979 or so. At my smallest, when in my mid-teens, I had a 29" waist, which along with the rest of my measurements put me in a size 14. That would be 1978-1979 or so. And at that time I had started sewing a lot of clothing for myself, so I was pretty familiar with the standard sizing charts.
ReplyDeleteThe one you've got may be based on an older sizing chart, as the one in my 1947 sewing book is similar to the sizes you list.
I agree people are getting heavier in general. It was pointed out in the early 1980s that sizes were being changed so people would think they fit a smaller size than they actually did. Heck, Red Green (aka Steve Smith) commented the same thing.
One the one hand, someone I knew went down to Disneyland with his kids. He said he and his kids were having lunch in a restaurant, sitting by the window, and were playing "Spot the Skinny Person", because there were so few. He said by skinny he meant average or even somewhat plump.
On the other hand, I grew up as a slightly chunky kid with a stocky build. Although, looking back at my photos, I was never fat, I was constantly called "fat". I'm still working on the negative self-image generated by years of being held up to some impossible physical ideal. I finally realized sometime in my 20s that my physical type wouldn't fit that image without radical plastic surgery--possibly not even then.
Anayway, I'm not sure I'd want to go back to the look of the late 1970s-early 1980s when most of the models looked like lollipops--big heads on a stick of a body.
Looking at Marilyn Monroe--who I think had a fantastic figure--even though she was an "old" size 14, she'd still be told to lose 20 lbs in today's acting business. They'd also want someone less soft and curvy and more muscular. In addition, as she had an hourglass figure, her ass is considered too big by today's standards. The current fashion is for rather narrow, boyish hips.
ReplyDeleteThe magazine is from 1976, and I seem to recall it was sometime in the 70s that the charts changed, I'm not sure when. I had my first kid in '80 and was thrilled to get "back into" size 8 jeans, but somehow, now I don't think they were the SAME size 8. ;-)
ReplyDeleteNow they call the lollipops "Bobbleheads" but it's the same thing - big head, tiny body. It's ugly.
I agree totally about being real about your physical type and being comfortable with it. My point was more personal - the more "generous" measurements and "Oh, don't weigh yourself too often" feel-good philosophy left me overweight and unhappy/unconfident in my appearance. I know I don't look like I should/can. I am small-boned, and genetically meant to be little, I can't claim that I'm fit or happy with extra pounds, my aching knees tell the true story. My daughter, OTOH, is tall and curvy and has a body like Sophia Loren in her prime, she will never be "skinny" and never should be.
I think as a society we blather a lot about the evil of an obsession with thinness and have a culture that encourages people to be overweight. So Americans are fat and sometimes self-righteous about it, because dammit, at least they are not caving to that Pressure to Be Thin. Of course, nearly everything works against losing weight, from our suburban communities where you can't WALK to anything to our "value meals" and restaurant portions that are so generous they are really two meals, (because "That's what the consumer wants" because that's what the consumer has been conditioned to want) are basically designed to fatten us up. Even the "good" advice - don't weigh yourself too often, blah blah - can backfire. I now get on the scale every morning. I haven't seen much weigh loss progress yet, but I don't slit my wrists, I just remind myself it took me about 10 years to put on 30 pounds and it's not coming off in a month.
True re Monroe, though there are actresses who buck the trend and still have curves, they aren't the top box office draws making the multi-millions. Renee Zellweger looked SO much better with a fuller figure, now she's your classic Hollywood Bobblehead. She's a big girl and not meant to be that skinny, she looks sick. She looked better in Bridget Jones (at that "fat weight") than she has in years. Madonna, too - she had the Monroe Body and worked it off so now she looks all stringy and hard. I agree with the French saying that after a Certain Age, you have to choose between your face and your ass. 10-15 pounds would do Madonna's face a world of good.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely agree about Renee Zellweger and Madonna. They'd both look a lot better if they were about 20 lbs, or even 10 lbs heavier. "Bobblehead" is a good description of that look.
ReplyDeleteI have a more-or-less hourglass figure, although I'd like to take about 25 lbs off of it. I'm a 16-18 now, and would like to be back to a 14-16. I did get myself down to the 12-14 range once, but couldn't stay there long. It's hell finding pants and skirts that fit when you have an 11" differential between waist and hips. I grew up absolutely hating my physical type--I'm only just starting to accept it for what it is. My mother used to try to console me, telling my I had "Child-bearing hips". As you can imagine, that wasn't much consolation. Unfortunately, I'm also not that tall (5'5"), and have broad shoulders, making me look short and wide. I have to choose clothing very carefully.
Sofia Loren in her prime was a lovely woman and your daughter is lucky to have that figure type.
One thing I learned long ago--screw the scale. MEASURE yourself once a week or so. Your measurements will often change (especially with working out) while your weight fluctuates very little. It's really a much better gauge of your progress.
*Sigh* It's a tough call. I agree with people excusing bad eating/lifestyle habits by pointing to the "pressure to be thin" while stuffing their faces with "Super-sized" or "Mega-Meals" of mostly empty calories. I love junk as much as the next person, but I try to be careful of how much I eat.
On the other hand, while I see my niece as overweight for her age due to bad eating habits, I hesitate to pressure her, remembering my own childhood. Her father was the same until he was about 17. He suddenly decided he was tired of being fat, and that was that.
Yeah, I agree re the measurements - and I have to say that even at my Advanced Age, the body responds nicely. I've lost like 2 inches off my butt, while my weight has barely budged a pound or two.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree that at whatever age, it has to be the person who decides that they're tired of being fat. Any pressure from outside just tends to make you dig in and resist. That's why I think the whole focus on these Hollywood freakazoids with their eating disorders that turn them into Bobbleheads is a distraction from the real issue of the average person who would be healthier and happier if they ate less/better and exercized more. And I don't think that it's entirely a coincidence that we "got this fat" post WWII when the great exodus to the suburbs started, and nobody could walk anywhere conveniently. Combine that with the "value meal" and buy stock in Lane Bryant-type places and the Big and Tall Men's stores. It's inevitable, but the alternative isn't Bobblehead-hood. And you have to wonder why that's the media focus - "We're too fat" followed by "Celebrity Eating Disorders." Like there's no middle ground? I have no intention of ever being my high school size again, I'd be creepy-boney at that size now, but I know that at, say, even 135 lbs, my small bones will be very grateful for the lighter load, and that's not far away.
My daughter would be emaciated at that weight, but she has been blessed with tall, big boned Italian goddess genetics. She just wants to be solid and toned at her curvy proportions. It's not all about being SKINNY, and I wish it wasn't presented as such. But the size charts are fairly cold proof that we've gotten BIGGER, and we excuse it in many ways, some valid, some totally not.
Oh, and as an example of how Body Type and bone structure matters, I'm also 5'5" - but I'm currently a size 10 and way too flabby for my bone structure. I'd be happy to be a 10 and firm, of course, but firm and in shape doesn't hit until I'm a 6-8. And this is not insanely unrealistic, I was a 6-8 until my late 30s, so it's not like I'm aiming for some teenaged, pre-kids, pre adulthood body. Below an 8 and I have visible bones, and that is quite disturbing and I never want to go there.
ReplyDeleteObviously a big difference in bone structure between the two of us.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't get me started on the suburbs. Since moving down here, we rarely get out for walks anymore. At the times when I'm free, it's often stupidly hot. But even worse, there are almost no sidewalks/trails anywhere around here. You often take your life in your hands walking most places.
This city was definitely not made to be pedestrian-friendly. Hell, I've seen people in this complex DRIVE their garbage the 50-100 feet to the bin and DRIVE their kids 1 block to school. I swear, if they don't use their legs more, they'll fall of. Then they can't understand why the state incidence of obesity is so high. I saw large people in Calgary, but nothing like the numbers here.
Not to mention the crap that people here tend to shovel in. I watch the kids in the food court, and think "That's going to catch up with you guys, and by the time you realize it, it will be hard to change."
Back in Calgary, neither of us were exactly considered outdoor/exercise freaks next to the population of hikers/mountain bikers/rock climbers. Here? We're considered positively fitness-obsessed because we like to go for long walks. Go figure.
Bone structure - my mother is 4'11" and 110 pounds on her fattest day. My dad was 5'8" at his tallest and if he's 140 pounds today I'll eat a bug. I'm genetically little, I'm taller but still tiny boned, size 6.5 shoes, watch bands spin on my wrist, etc.
ReplyDeleteFew places are pedestrian friendly, and in the South, with the miserable heat and humidity, you have to time walking. I walk at the gym on a treadmill, but if I have to walk outside I just feel my hair frizzing and my makeup melting.
Food court - I still remember a day in Burger King, years ago, when I was behind 3 12-13 year olds. The by far chubbiest member of the group was earnestly lecturing her slimmer friends that they were fools not to buy the value meal, because "It's the best deal."
Here there is a weird disconnect between the fatness of the population at large and the availabiity of outdoor activities, private gyms, YMCAs, and schools that seem more like sports camps than places where education is a priority. It's a socio-economic disconnect, and it's so easy to see. Go to Wal-Mart on Saturday, eyeball the average ass. Cross the intersection and go to Target. Ass size average drops 4 inches.
I DO feel pressure to be thin and in shape in this culture, because I know it really is measured here. Not in an extreme, the thinner the better way, but in an "If you look good, life is easier," way. That's just how it is.
Oh, and my mom is pushing 80. In her thirties she never cracked 100 pounds. Think Short Audrey Hepburn, married to David Niven, that's pretty much my gene pool. I can't pass off extra weight as "big bones" or "genetics," yet, despite that gene pool, I could still gain weight and look the other way while doing it.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very weird disconnect. They're football-crazy here, yet if any of these people gets much exercise, I'd be surprised. The other thing we couldn't get over is that with the exception of the university grounds and the botanical gardens (which we found through a tipoff) there are no parks here. What's called a park here is a baseball diamond or football field or something. To us a park means trails and fields and woods.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting comment about Wal-Mart vs. Target. I'll watch more carefully from now on and report back.
Oh, definitely. Thinner is easier.
My mother--5'9", but about my size. Not sure what she weighs--160-170, perhaps? I've inherited her build, but not her height. She's gone up and down. I saw pictures of her from years ago when she was over 200 lbs. Then again, as a teenager she was a tall, good-looking girl, and told me that at that age she always felt big and fat. My mother has struggled most of her life to keep her weight down.
My father is 6'2", and a big man, and overweight. I'd guess him at 225 or so. He was a beanpole as a teenager, but now he puts on weight easily--and loves to eat.
In a sense, thanks to the larger frame I can get away with some excess poundage without actually looking overweight. I've had people guess me as weighing less than I do. I've had to work since I was in my teens to keep my weight at a reasonable level. The highest I've ever been is 190 (and I took care of that once I realized what was happening) and the lowest 145. I'm about 170 right now, and if I could get rid of 15-20 lbs, I'd be happy. It won't be easy--my body seems to really like the 165-175 weight range.
The first big pattern sizing drop was in 1967 when I was in high school (you young whipper snappers) and boy oh boy was I glad to be officially a size 12. Somehow that number just didn't feel so huge as a 14 or a 16.
ReplyDeleteWhat really makes me angry is the skewed self image every woman in america has because of the mixed messages thrust at them 24/7.
And don't get me started on suburbs with no sidewalks! Argh!
Here in the Real South, the average size is somewhere around the present day 18 or 20, 5'4" and 200 lbs. This means that our eyes get used to fat being normal.
Sigh.
Wouldn't be wonderful if there was some sort of connection between what we see and what is really there?
Heheh. Definitely true, Bess. I'm only just starting to (sort of) see myself the way DH sees me rather than through the distorted glass I've used for years.
ReplyDeleteYou are the flip of me and my daughter. I'm 5'5", she's 5'9"+, and we have the same general build, hourglass figure, which makes it SO easy to put on weight, because we gain it all over, proportionately, so it's so easy to put on poundage over a period of time and not really "see" it. But she got the Italian genes from her father, she's bigger boned and would look like a cadaver at the Model Weight for her height. Me, I'm puny-boned and look dumpy with even 20 extra pounds.
ReplyDeleteThere definitely is a disconnect between self-image and reality. Mine is the opposite, I suffer from what Caroline Rea calls "reverse anorexia - I think I'm thinner than I really am." And I don't like the reality, so I'm working my ass off to change it. :-)