The Ridiculous Range Of ‘Size 8’ In Women’s Clothing

The Ridiculous Range Of ‘Size 8’ In Women’s Clothing

There is almost no reality-based standard by which clothing is sized and labelled. It’s easy to see in guys’ jeans, but as the New York Times shows in an eye-opening graphic, women have it much, much worse.

The Times does suggest a ray of hope inside the maelstrom of (somewhat intentional) confusion. There’s a movement afoot to create standards for sizing, and one firm, MyBestFit, is slowly rolling out a full body scanner to provide sizing guidance across all brands. In the meantime, merchandise returns will continue to be a big part of clothing retail, and charts like the Times’ can only try to provide a little guidance.

Got any sizing tips, or horror stories, of your own to share? Let’s hear them in the comments.

Am I a Size 4? 8? 10? Tackling a Crazy Quilt of Sizing []


  • Why not simply use actual measurements (in inches or centimetres), as opposed to an arbitrary size number? I know some women may be sensitive about confronting their ACTUAL WAIST SIZE OH MY GOD I’M HOW BIG but is the confusion worth it?

  • The tendency for men’s pants and shirt collars to have actual measurements as sizes should be extended to as many areas of clothing as possible – men’s, women’s, kids’ etc.

    Men’s shirts should be next: half of my shirts are too short in the arms; another bunch are waay too big at the belly, but all have the same “neck” measurement. It’s not as though neck/waist/bust/arm specifications don’t already exist for these garments. Just print ’em on the label and I’ll be first in line to refresh my wardrobe!

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!